Ht )SHi 


* 


* 


< 


DEBATERS’  HANDBOOK  SERIES 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  AND 
COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION  OF 
INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 


Debaters’  Handbook  Series 

American  Merchant  Marine  $1.50 
Capital  Punishment  (3d  ed.  rev.  and 
enl.) 

Central  Bank  of  the  United  States 
Child  Labor  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

City  Manager  Plan 

Compulsory  Arbitration  of  Industrial 
Disputes  (4th  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
$2.25 

Compulsory  Insurance 
Conservation  of  Natural  Resources 
Debaters’  Manual  (3d  ed.  enl.) 

Direct  Primaries  (4th  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Election  of  U.  S.  Senators  (2d  ed.) 
Employment  of  Women  (2d  ed.) 
Federal  Control  of  Interstate  Corpora¬ 
tions  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Free  Trade  vs.  Protection 
Government  Ownership  of  Railroads 
Vol.  II.  $1.50 

Government  Ownership  of  Telegraph 
and  Telephone 

Income  Tax  (3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Initiative  and  Referendum  (3d  ed.  rev.) 
Minimum  W age 
Mothers’  Pensions 
Municipal  Ownership  (3d  ed.)  $1.50 
National  Defense.  Vol.  II 
National  Defense  Vol.  III.  $1.80 
Open  versus  Closed  Shop  (2d  ed.) 
Parcels  Post  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Prohibition  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Recall  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Reciprocity 

Single  Tax  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Trade  Unions  (2d  ed.  enl.) 
Unemployment 

World  Peace  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 


Other  titles  in  preparation 

Each  volume,  unless  otherwise  noted , 
$1.25  net 


Debaters'  Handbook  Series 


SELECTED  ARTICLES 

ON  THE 

COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  AND 
COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION  OF 
INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


COMPILED  BY 

LAMAR  T.  BEMAN,  A.  M.,  LL  B. 

ATTORNEY  AT  LAW,  -  CLEVELAND,  OHIO 


FOURTH  EDITION,  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED 


THE  H.  W.  WILSON  COMPANY 
NEW  YORK 
1920 


Published  in  1911 
Second  Edition,  January,  1915 
Third  Edition,  Augrust,  1917 
Fourth  Edition,  September,  1920 


I 


EXPLANATORY  NOTE 


This  volume  is  compiled  according  to  the  general  plan  of  the 
Debaters’  Handbook  series,  but  it  differs  from  other  numbers 
of  the  series  in  that  it  covers  two  questions.  It  is  the  plan  of 
the  series  to  have  a  separate  volume  for  each  question  for  de¬ 
bate.  In  this  case,  however,  the  two  questions  are  closely  relat¬ 
ed,  and  much  of  the  literature  deals  with  both,  so  that  it  is 
impracticable  to  present  them  in  separate  volumes  and  yet  im¬ 
possible  to  combine  them  into  one  question.  Compulsory  Ar¬ 
bitration  as  adopted  in  Kansas  and  New  Zealand  is  a  very  dif¬ 
ferent  thing  from  Compulsory  Investigation  as  used  in  Colorado 
and  Canada.  Both  are  of  such  general  interest  and  so  often  dis¬ 
cussed  and  debated  that  there  has  been  constant  demand  for  a 
new  edition  of  this  volume. 

Compulsory  Arbitration  and  Compulsory  Investigation  are 
terms  that  are  frequently  confused,  the  former  term  often  being 
used  when  the  latter  is  meant.  Compulsory'  Arbitration  means 
a  law  commanding  that  differences  between  employer  and  em¬ 
ploye,  which  cannot  be  settled  by  mutual  agreement,  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  arbitration,  that  both  parties  must  comply  with  the 
award,  and  that  there  may  be  no  cessation  of  industry  by  strike 
or  lockout.  Compulsory  Investigation  on  the  other  hand  means 
‘enforced  postponement  of  a  strike  or  lockout  until  notice  has 
been  given  and  time  allowed  for  an  investigation,  the  findings  of 
which  are  to  be  made  public.  The  former  prohibits  strikes  and 
lockouts,  the  latter  delays  them  so  as  to  prevent  hasty  action  on 
the  part  of  either  party  and  to  permit  an  official  investigation, 
the  findings  of  which  shall  inform  the  public  as  to  the  nature 
and  merits  of  the  controversy. 

This  volume  contains  a  full  general  bibliography  revised  to 
the  date  of  this  issue,  but  not  separated  into  affirmative  and 
negative  references,  because  many  articles  either  present  both 
sides  of  one  question,  or  take  up  both  questions.  It  also  con¬ 
tains  briefs  and  reprints  of  the  best  material  on  both  sides  of 
each  question. 

June  30,  1920. 


Lamar  T.  Beman 


CONTENTS 

Explanatory  Note  .  y 

Briefs 

Compulsory  Arbitration  . 

Compulsory  Investigation 

Bibliography 

Bibliographies  and  Briefs 
Books  and  Pamphlets  ... 

Periodicals  . \. . 

Government  Publications 
Industrial  Warfare  . 

Introduction 

PART  I.  INDUSTRIAL  WARFARE 


Strikes  .  13 

War  on  the  People  . Outlook  19 

Thompson,  Slason.  Violence  in  Labor  Conflicts . 

. . .  Outlook  21 

Dyn&mite  Outrages  . 27 

The  Boycott  .  33 

Stone,  Peter.  Intimidation  and  Deportation  .  34 

Strike  Breaking  .  35 

The  Pinkerton  Agency  and  Labor  Struggles  .  37 

Thomas,  Chas.  S.  The  Right  To  Strike  . 


. Congressional  Record  39 

Mr.  Gomper’s  Reply  . Congressional  Record  41 

What  Strikes  Have  Cost  The  Miners  . 

. Literary  Digest  45 

The  Strike  Balance  Sheet  . New  York  Times  46 


xi 

xxix 

xxxiii 

xxxiv 

xxxix 

lix 

lxv 


Vlll 


CONTENTS 


Expensive  Idleness  . Cleveland  Plain  Dealer  48 

Babson,  Roger  W.  What  These  Strikes  Cost  You  in 

Money  . American  Magazine  49 

Where  Do  The  People  Come  In  . Independent  54 

Brief  Excerpts  .  55 

PART  II.  GENERAL  DISCUSSION 

Anti-Strike  Legislation  in  Various  Countries  .  69 

The  Kansas  Industrial  Court  Bill . Law  &  Labor  76 

The  Colorado  Industrial  Commission  . . 

. Monthly  Labor  Review  80 

Beebee,  George.  The  Australian  System  of  Dealing  with 
Labor  Disputes  . Survey  82 


PART  III.  COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION 

Affirmative  Discussion 

Parsons,  Frank.  Compulsory  Arbitration . Arena  91 

Address  of  William  Allen  White  . 

. Kansas  Legislature,  January,  1920  104 

The  Cummins  Bill  . 105 

Underwood,  Oscar  W.  Compulsory  Arbitration  in  Rail¬ 
road  Labor  Disputes  . 115 

Allen,  Llenry  J.  Liberty  and  Law  in  Kansas . 

. Review  of  Reviews  128 

Governor  Allen’s  Discovery . Buffalo  Commercial  139 

Brief  Excerpts  .  141 

Negative  Discussion 

Gompers,  Samuel.  Compulsory  Arbitration  in  the 

Railroad  Engineers’  Award  . 

.  American  Federationist  149 


Stanley,  A.  Owsley.  Railroad  Control .  165 

Fitch,  John  A.  Industrial  Peace  by  Law . Survey  176 


Russell,  Charles  Edward.  Compulsory  Arbitration,  the 
Next  Battle  Prize  . . . . Reconstruction  183 


CONTENTS 


IX 


Compulsion  Does  Not  Insure  Peace  .  * 

. Cleveland  Plain  Dealer  191 


Canfield,  F.  C.  The  Anti-Strike  Bill . Iowa  Unionist  193 

Brief  Excerpts  .  197 


PART  IV.  COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION 

Affirmative  Discussion 

Compulsory  Investigation  . Public  209 

President  Wilson  Recommends  Compulsory  Investiga¬ 
tion  .  210 

President  Wilson  “Earnestly  Renews”  His  Recommen¬ 
dation  . ;  213 

Dunn,  Samuel  O.  Government  Prevention  of  Railroad 
Strikes  . Railway  Age  Gazette  214 

Clark,  Victor  S.  The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Act 
. Academy  of  Political  Science.  Proceedings  228 

Statement  of  Hon.  G.  D.  Robertson  .  236 

Lee,  Elisha.  Trial  By  Jury  . Independent  238 

Bryan,  William  J.  An  Industrial  Peace  Plan  . 

.  Commoner  243 


Brief  Excerpts  . * .  248 

Negative  Discussion 

Statement  of  Samuel  Gompers  .  253 

Opinion  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor .  260 

Statement  of  A.  B.  Garrettson  .  264 


Selekman,  Ben  M.  Nine  Years  of  the  Canadian  Act 

.  Survey  267 

O’Connell,  James.  The  Canadian  Disputes  Act...  Survey  286 

Garrettson,  Austin  B.  The  Right  to  Strike . 

. . ./ . .  Independent  289 

Carter,  W.  S.  The  Objections  of  Organized  Labor  to 

Compulsory  Arbitration  . 

. Academy  of  Political  Science,  Proceedings  294 

Brief  excerpts  .  299 


BRIEFS 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION 


Resolved,  That  Capital  and  Labor  should  be  compelled  to 
settle  their  disputes  in  legally  established  courts  of  arbitration. 


Introduction. 


Affirmative 


A.  The  question  presupposes  the  existence  of  labor  dis¬ 
putes. 

R  The  Affirmative  merely  proposes  that  these  disputes  be 
settled  by  peaceful  adjudication  in  courts  of  law,  as 
all  other  disputes  are  now  settled. 

C.  We  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  in  addition  to 

the  two  antagonists  in  every  labor  dispute  there  is 
always  a  great  third  party,  the  general  public,  inno¬ 
cent  of  any  blame  but  injured  by  every  strike. 

D.  The  Affirmative  does  not  claim  that  compulsory  indus¬ 

trial  arbitration  will  put  an  absolute  end  to  all  phases 
of  industrial  warfare,  but  we  do  claim  that  it  will 
reduce  labor  disturbances  to  a  minimum,  as  it  has 
done  in  New  Zealand  and  in  Kansas. 


I.  The  existing  conditions  in  our  industrial  system  demand  a 
remedy. 

A.  There  are  great  evils  connected  with  industrial  war¬ 
fare. 

I.  Mobs,  riots  and  other  disturbances  of  the  peace. 
(McClures  23:43.  Report  of  the  Industrial  Com¬ 
mission  19:877). 

(a)  The  Pullman  Car  strike  1894. 

(b)  The  Boston  Police  strike  1919  (Current 
History  11:54). 

(c)  The  Anthracite  Coal  strike  1902. 

(d)  Various  street  car  strikes. 

(e)  Homestead  strike  1892. 


XIV 


BRIEFS 


(d)  A  concerted  determined  railroad  strike 
would  mean  that  thousands,  perhaps  mil¬ 
lions,  of  people  in  the  cities  would  die  of 
starvation. 

3.  By  throwing  men  out  of  work. 

(a)  The  non-strikers  at  the  plant  directly  con¬ 
cerned.  (McClures  20:325). 

(b)  Employes  in  allied  or  dependent  industries. 

(x)  Shops  have  been  closed  because  of 
lack  of  fuel.  (Coal  strike  1919) 

(y)  Shops  and  factories  have  been  closed 
or  have  curtailed  their  work  because  of 
inability  to  get  raw  material.  (Railway 
Switchmens  strike  1920) 

4.  By  general  depression  of  business. 

5.  By  decreased  production  resulting  in  increased 
prices. 

(a)  An  attempt  is  always  made  to  make  up 
losses. 

(b)  Every  coal  strike  has  been  followed  by  an 
increase  in  the  price  of  coal. 

(c)  Milk  drivers  strikes  have  been  followed  by 
higher  prices. 

6.  By  destruction  of  property,*  all  of  which  is  a  « 

direct  loss  to  society. 

(a)  There  is  usually  a  deliberate  destruction  of 
the  employers  property,  called  sabotage. 

(b)  There  is  often  great  destruction  by  the 
rowdy  element  of  the  community. 

(x)  Boston  Police  strike. 

(c)  Sudden  strikes  and  deliberate  neglect,  as  in 
letting  fires  go  out,  boilers  run  dry,  or  pipes 
freeze,  often  cause  a  considerable  loss. 

(d)  Strikes  often  cause  a  great  loss  in  perish¬ 
able  goods. 

(e)  A  sort  of  “gorilla  warfare”  sometimes 
continues  after  a  strike  is  over. 

(x)  In  the  cases  known  as  “striking  on 
the  job.” 

(y)  The  dynamiting  cases  in  the  .structural 
iron  industry. 


BRIEFS 


xv 


D.  The  cost  to  society  of  industrial  warfare  is  enormous. 

1.  The  Seventeenth  Annual  report  of  the  U.  S. 
Commissioner  of  Labor  p.  24  places  the  loss 
caused  by  strikes  and  lockouts  from  1881  to  1900 
at  $468,968,581. 

2.  The  Statement  issued  by  the  U.  S.  Shipping 
Board  on  Dec.  6,  1919,  says  that  the  strikes  in  the 
first  eleven  months  of  that  year  cost  the  Board 
$37,000,000.  This  does  not  include  the  losses  to 
strikers,  to  allied  industries,  and  to  society. 

3.  The  New  York  Times  (editorial)  April  18,  1920 

says  “In  1919  an  incomplete  list  tabulated  losses 
of  wages  by  strikes  of  $723,478,300,  and  of  indus¬ 
trial  losses,  not  labor’s,  of  $1,266,357,450.  This 
is  about  a  hundred  dollars  for  each  family  in  the 
United  States  in  one  year. 

E.  Present  methods  do  not  afford  the  desired  remedy. 

1.  Industrial  warfare  has  steadily  grown  more  ex¬ 

tensive  and  more  bitter. 

(a)  From  1881  to  1905  there  were  38,303  strikes 
and  lockouts  ifi  the  United  States,  an  aver¬ 
age  of  1532  a  year  (21  Annual  Report  U.  S. 
Commissioner  of  Labor). 

(b)  In  1916,  1917  and  1918  there  were  11,430, 
an  average  of  3810  a  year.  (Monthly  Labor 
Review  8:  1858). 

(c)  “Since  the  war  we  have  had  a  perfect 
carnival  of  strikes.” 

(d)  Industrial  unrest  has  produced  increasing 
uncertainties  in  business. 

(e)  Strikes  are  always  most  frequent  in  times 
of  prosperity  when  wages  are  highest. 

2.  Voluntary  arbitration  has  failed  utterly  to  settle 
or  prevent  strikes  and  lockouts. 

(a)  Voluntary  arbitration  is  wrong  in  theory, 
because  boards  of  this  kind  lack  the  power 
to  compel  the  parties  to  arbitrate  and  the 
power  to  enforce  their  awards. 

(b)  Voluntary  arbitration  has  failed  in  foreign 
countries.  (Bulletin  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor. 

16:  970-7). 


XVI 


BRIEFS 


(c)  It  has  failed  completely  in  this  country. 

(s)  Many  states  have  not  adopted  it. 

(t)  Federal  laws  apply  chiefly  to  trans¬ 
portation  industries. 

(u)  In  the  ten  years  the  law  of  1888  was 
in  force,  not  one  arbitration  board  was 
organized  under  its  provisions. 

(v)  During  the  first  eight  and  a  half  years 
of  the  Erdman  Act,  the  arbitration  ma¬ 
chinery  it  created  was  never  utilized. 
(Bulletin,  Bureau  of  Labor  24:  1  Ja.  ’12) 

(w)  During  the  next  six  years,  although 
the  mediation  and  conciliation  provisions 
of  the  Erdman  Law  were  used  almost 
sixty  times,  the  arbitration  features  of 
the  law  were  only  used  four  times. 

(x)  The  Newlands  law  has  failed  to  pre¬ 
vent  railway  strikes,  and  it  failed  to 
prevent  the  crisis  at  the  time  of  the 
threatened  railroad  strike  of  1916,  which 

r 

was  prevented  only  by  the  passage  of 
the  Adamson  Act. 

(y)  The  Esch-Cummins  law  failed  to  pre¬ 
vent  or  settle  the  switchmen’s  strike  of 
1920. 

(z)  The  twenty-first  annual  report  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Labor  states  (p.  85) 
that  only  one  and  six-tenths  per  cent  of 
the  strikes  in  the  United  States  between 
1901  and  1905,  both  years  inclusive, 
were  settled  by  voluntary  arbitration. 

3.  Mediation  and  conciliation  have  failed  to  settle 

the  great  strikes. 

4.  Trade  agreements  presuppose  ideal  relations  be¬ 
tween  capital  and  labor. 

(a)  Agreements  are  often  broken  by  strikes. 

(Switchmen’s  strike  1920). 

(b)  Agreements  are  often  broken  by  “stop¬ 
pages”  or  by  “striking  on  the  job.” 


BRIEFS 


xvn 


II.  Compulsory  Arbitration  offers  the  desired  remedy. 

A.  It  is  sound  in  theory. 

1.  Decision  by  reason  is  better  than  decision  by 
force. 

2.  The  public  always  wants  arbitration. 

3.  The  proposed  courts  would  represent  all  parties : 
Captital,  Labor,  and  the  general  public  as  they 
do  in  New  Zealand. 

4.  They  will  possess  two  requisites  which  present 
boards  lack. 

(a)  The  power  of  permitting  either  contestant 
to  bring  the  other  contestant  into  court  and 
compel  him  to  arbitrate  the  dispute. 

(b)  The  power  of  enforcing  its  decisions. 

B.  The  welfare  of  the  people  demands  enforced  arbitra¬ 

tion. 

1.  There  is  no  “right  to  strike.” 

2.  In  many  strikes  the  general  public  suffers  more 
than  either  contestant.  (Outlook.  94:517-18) 

3.  Being  thus  vitally  *  interested  the  public  has  a 
right  to  demand  settlement  in  a  court  of  justice, 

C.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  establish  these  courts. 

(Forum.  14:21-5) 

1.  The  primary  purpose  of  government  and  all  pub¬ 

lic  authority  is  the  promotion  of  peace  and  public 
welfare.  (Garner — Introduction  to  Political  Sci¬ 
ence,  p.  316.  [311-18]) 

2.  The  public  welfare  is  involved  in  all  labor  dis¬ 
putes. 

3.  Compulsory  Arbitration  will  reduce  labor  disputes 
to  a  minimum. 

(a)  It  has  done  this  in  New  Zealand  and  New 
South  Wales. 

D.  Compulsory  Arbitration  will  lessen  the  dangers  that 

threaten  our  institutions  and  civilization. 

1.  From  socialism  because  it  guarantees  the  work¬ 
ers  a  living  wage  and  continued  employment, 
which  is  all  that  socialism  can  offer. 

2.  From  race  suicide. 


XV111 


BRIEFS 


3.  From  demagogues  or  walking  delegates  or  any 
other  outgrowth  of  discontent. 

4.  From  unreasonable  employers. 

III.  Compulsory  Arbitration  is  practicable. 

A.  Compulsory  Arbitration  has  been  successful  in  New 

Zealand,  Australia,  Denmark,  Norway,  Kansas,  and 
in  some  other  places  where  it  has  been  tried  in  a  par¬ 
tial  or  limited  way. 

1.  It  has  benefited  capitalists. 

(a)  In  making  contracts  they  can  proceed  with¬ 
out  the  fear  of  a  strike  or  of  being  com¬ 
pelled  to  pay  unreasonable  wages. 

(b)  Industrial  peace  and  security  have  drawn 
capital  into  the  country. 

2.  It  benefits  the  employes. 

(a)  They  are  freed  from  most  of  the  losses 
and  hardships  of  strikes. 

(b)  They  have  legal  rights  in  regard  to  their 
wages. 

(c)  Industrial  justice  is  also  extended  to  those 
who  are  not  able  to  conduct  a  successful 
strike. 

(d)  “Sweating”  has  been  abolished. 

3.  It  benefits  the  general  public. 

(a)  It  is  the  best  guarantee  of  industrial  peace 
yet  devised. 

(b)  It  secures  continuous  service. 

B.  Conditions  in  this  country  are  favorable  to  adoption 

of  Compulsory  Arbitration. 

1.  The  awards  can  be  enforced. 

(a)  On  employers  or  capitalists  by  fine  or  im¬ 
prisonment. 

(b)  On  employees  by 

(w)  Fines  or  imprisonment,  as  is  provided 
in  the  Kansas  law. 

(x)  The  necessity  of  working. 

(y)  The  removal  of  the  cause  of  a  strike, 
namely  an  unsettled  difference. 

(z)  By  the  force  of  public  opinion. 

2.  Unjust  awards  are  improbable. 


BRIEFS 


xix 


(a)  These  courts  (as  in  New  Zealand)  would 
be  made  up  of  a  representative  of  capital, 
labor,  and  the  general  public. 

(b)  If  conditions  make  it  impossible  for  an  em¬ 
ployer  to  pay  any  certain  wage,  it  will  not 
be  difficult  for  him  to  establish  that  fact  in 
court. 

(c)  Working-men  do  not  want  or  expect  a 
wage  higher  than  an  industry  can  pay. 

(d)  A  wage  is  always  the  result  of  a  com¬ 
promise  and  the  effect  upon  industry  is  the 
same  whether  the  compromise  is  brought 
about  by  collective  bargaining,  conciliation 
or  in  a  court  of  industrial  justice. 

(e)  Twenty-five  years  of  experience  in  New 
Zealand  and  Australasia  do  not  reveal  a 
single  case  of  an  unjust  or  unreasonable 
award. 

(f)  Gov.  Allen  of  Kansas  has  said  that  deci¬ 
sions  of  the  Industrial  court  will  be  so  fair 

* 

that  within  two  years  all  opposition  to  the 
law  will  cease. 

C.  It  is  the  natural  remedy  of  the  age,  the  logical  next 
step. 

i.  No  better  remedy  has  ever  been  proposed. 

(a)  The  opponents  of  Compulsory  Arbitration 
content  themselves  with  a  purely  negative 
opposition.  They  all  admit  the  losses  and 
other  evil  results  of  strikes,  lockouts,  boy¬ 
cotts,  blacklists,  and  violence,  but  they 
oppose  the  natural  and  logical  remedy  for 
industrial  warfare  without  offering  any 
other  remedy. 

•  2.  It  is  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  age. 

(a)  Conservation  and  efficiency  are  the  watch¬ 
words  of  this  generation.  Compulsory 
Arbitration  will  make  for  both  of  these 
ends. 

3.  It  has  steadily  gained  in  favor  the  world  over. 

(a)  It  has  been  used  for  twenty-five  years  in 
New  Zealand  and  Australia. 


}feX 


BRIEFS 


(b)  It  has  recently  been  adopted  in  France, 
Denmark,  Norway,  and  Kansas,  and  in  a 

limited  form  in  some  other  countries. 

(c)  It  was  a  feature  of  the  original  Cummins 
railroad  bill  that  passed  the  United  States 
Senate  January  1920. 

(d)  It  has  been  declared  constitutional  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
(Wilson  vs.  New.  243  U.  S.  332) 

(e)  It  has  been  recommended  and  endorsed  by 
many  of  our  ablest  scholars  and  statesmen. 

(v)  Senator  A.  B.  Cummins  of  Iowa 

(w)  William  Allen  White 

(x)  Gov.  Henry  J.  Allen  of  Kansas  (Cur¬ 
rent  Opinion  68 :  472,  Independent  101 : 
385,  Saturday  Evening  Post  Mr.  6,  20, 
Message  to  Kansas  Legislature) 

(y)  Ex-Gov.  Joseph  W.  Brown  of  Georgia. 
(Message  to  Georgia  Legislature  June  25, 

1913) 

(z)  Judge  Gary,  Chairman  U.  S.  Steel  Cor¬ 
poration.  (Iron  Trade  Review  66:171) 

4.  The  extension  of  the  judicial  system  to  adjudicate 
industrial  disputes  is  the  logical  and  inevitable 
conclusion. 


Negative 


Introduction. 

A.  Meaning  of  the  question. 

1.  All  differences  between  Capital  and  Labor  to  be 
settled  in  this  manner. 

2.  Either  party  or  the  court  itself  may  take  the 
initiative. 

3.  Special  courts  are  to  be  established. 

4.  The  courts  are  to  be  given  power  to  compel  both 
parties  to  submit  to  arbitration  and  to  accept  the 
award. 

B.  The  Negative  will  show. 

1.  Compulsory  Arbitration  is  unnecessary. 

2.  It  is  unwise  and  undesirable. 

3.  It  is  impracticable. 


BRIEFS 


xxi 


I.  Compulsory  Arbitration  is  unnecessary. 

A.  Strikes  are  not  a  sufficient  necessity. 

1.  Less  than  4  per  cent  of  the  men  engaged  in  indus¬ 

try  are  involved  in  strikes  annually.  (Report  of 
the  Industrial  Commission.  I7:CXXIX) 

2.  Only  1  work  day  in  500  lost  in  strikes,  1  of  one 
per  cent. 

3.  Average  length  of  a  strike  is  25.4  days.  (Twenty- 

First  Annual  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Labor,  p.  46) 

4.  There  is  no  danger  to  our  institutions  in  strikes, 
(a)  Losses  are  small  proportionally,  1  /500  part 

in  time. 

5.  Strikes  are  not  increasing  as  fast  as  the  popula¬ 
tion  of  the  country  (Adams  and  Sunnier, 
Labor  Problems,  eighth  edition  p.  179) 

B.  There  are  now  strong  factors  making  for  industrial 

peace. 

1.  Employe  representation  in  management,  with 
shop  adjustment  councils  and  impartial  boards  of 
appeal.  (Report  of  the  Industrial  Conference 
1920;  Bloomfield,  Modern  industrial  movements, 
Basset,  When  the  workmen  help  you  manage ; 
Atlantic  Monthly  117:12  and  Survey  35:72  and 
143.) 

(a)  It  is  sound  in  principle. 

(w)  It  is  preventive,  not  curative. 

(x)  It  applies  the  principle  of  stoppage  at 
source. 

(y)  It  develops  good  feeling  and  mutual 
confidence  and  understanding  between 
employer  and  employe. 

(z)  It  gives  labor  a  voice  in  the  conduct  of 
the  business,  which  develops  a  feeling 
of  responsibility. 

(b)  It  has  worked  well  in  practice. 

(x)  It  has  very  largely  removed  the  causes 
of  misunderstanding  and  suspicion. 
(Tailoring  Industry  in  Chicago). 

(y)  It  has  reduced  labor  unrest  to  a 
minimum.  (Case  of  Colorado  Fuel  & 
Iron  Co.) 


XXII 


BRIEFS 


2.  Voluntary  arbitration  under  the  Newlands  and 

Esch-Cummins  Acts,  and  through  state,  local  and 

unofficial  boards. 

(a)  Twice  as  many  disputes,  involving  five 
times  as  many  men,  are  settled  each  year  by 
voluntary  arbitration  in  New  York  City 
alone,  as  have  been  settled  under  the  Ca¬ 
nadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act 
in  the  nine  years  of  that  law.  (Review  of 
Reviews.  55:190) 

3.  Mediation  and  Conciliation. 

4.  Trade  agreements  and  collective  bargaining. 

5.  Intelligent  public  opinion  as  is  provided  for  in  the 

Esch-Cummins  law. 

II.  Compulsory  Arbitration  is  unwise  and  undesirable. 

A.  It  is  un-American. 

1.  Destroys  individual  liberty. 

(a)  Of  employer — to  employ  whom  he  pleases. 

(b)  Of  employe — involuntary  servitude. 

2.  Destroys  right  of  free  contract. 

(a)  Employer  and  employe  are  forced  to  be¬ 
come  parties  to  a  contract  to  which  neither 
agrees  or  has  given  his  consent. 

(b)  Capital  and  labor  are  not  partners,  but 
stand  in  the  relation  of  buyer  and  seller, 
and  should  be  free  to  act  as  such. 

3.  It  gives  the  Industrial  Courts  too  great  powers. 

(a)  One  body  would  be  exercising  legislative, 
executive,  and  judicial  powers. 

(b)  The  court  can  take  up  a  case  on  its  own 
initiative,  although  neither  party  has  ap¬ 
pealed  to  it  or  wants  its  judgment. 

4.  It  is  unconstitutional.  (Peters.  Labor  and 

Capital,  p.  281). 

(a)  It  has  been  so  held  by  the  courts. 

(x)  State  vs.  Ryan,  182  Mo.  349. 

(y)  State  vs.  Johnson,  61  Kan.  803. 

(b)  It  is  in  violation  of  the  part  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  relating  to  the  obligation  of 
contract.  (Article  1,  Section  10:1) 


BRIEFS  xxiii 

(6)  It  is  in  violation  of  the  Seventh  Amend¬ 
ment  which  provides  for  trial  by  jury. 

(d)  It  is  in  violation  of  the  Thirteenth  Amend¬ 
ment  for  it  would  be  involuntary  servitude. 
(Hodges  vs.  U.  S.,  203  U.  S.  1,  and  Amer¬ 
ican  Federationist  23:929  and  26:1046) 

(e)  The  decision  in  the  case  of  Wilson  vs. 
New,  (243  U.S.  332)  cannot  be  considered  as 
establishing  the  law  finally  on  this  point. 
(Proceedings  of  Academy  of  Political 
Science  7:44-80.  Survey  37:737.  Railway 
Age  Gazette  62  :6i2.  Review  of  Reviews  55  : 
526). 

(x)  The  District  Court  had  held  to  the 
contrary. 

(y)  The  Supreme  Court  reached  its  deci¬ 
sion  by  a  vote  of  five  to  four.  (See 
Dissenting  Opinions). 

(z)  The  decision  applies  only  to  indus¬ 
tries  “charged  with  a  public  interest.” 

B.  It  is  wrong  in  principle. 

1.  It  comes  into  play  after  the  dispute  has  embit¬ 
tered  the  parties. 

2.  It  is  curative,  not  preventive. 

3.  It  does  not  employ  the  principle  of  stoppage  at 
source. 

4.  It  makes  criminals  out  of  men  who  are  only  try¬ 
ing  to  better  their  condition. 

C.  It  is  unjust  to  employers. 

1.  Employers  have  property  and  are  more  easily 
reached  by  the  courts.  In  New  Zealand  only 
licensed  unions  can  be  made  a  party  to  a  suit. 
Working-men  may  act  as  individuals  and  keep 
out  of  reach  of  the  courts,  but  employers  could 
not. 

2.  These  courts  could  not  prevent  a  secret  boycott 
which  hurts  employers  seriously. 

3.  It  would  make  conditions  of  competition  unfair 

among  employers. 

4.  It  would  destroy  freedom  of  contract. 

5.  It  would  increase  cost  of  production  and  drive 
capital  out  of  the  country. 


XXIV 


BRIEFS 


D.  Unfair  to  employees.  (Le  Rossingnol  and  Stewart. 

State  Socialism  in  New  Zealand,  p.  243) 

1.  It  would  be  involuntary  servitude. 

2.  It  would  weaken  labor  unions,  if  not  destroy  their 
usefulness. 

3.  It  would  encourage  increased  disrespect  for  law 
and  the  judiciary. 

4.  It  would  increase  the  cost  of  living.  (Le  Rossig- 
nol  and  Stewart.  State  Socialism  in  New  Zea¬ 
land,  p.  244) 

5.  It  would  be  an  injury  to  inefficient  workmen.  (Le 

Rossignol  and  Stewart,  p.  232) 

6.  It  would  take  away  from  labor  its  only  weapon, 
and  leave  it  unarmed  to  fight  organized  capital. 

E.  It  would  destroy  present  methods  of  securing  indus¬ 

trial  peace. 

1.  Management  Sharing  and  Shop  Councils  where 
capital  and  labor  meet  as  friends,  would  be  com¬ 
pletely  ended. 

2.  Voluntary  arbitration,  mediation,  and  conciliation, 
which  require  good  will  and  mutual  confidence 
would  give  way  as  they  have  in  New  Zealand. 

3.  Trade  agreements  would  be  less  useful. 

4.  Public  opinion  would  be  entirely  eliminated. 

5.  It  would  widen  the  gulf  between  capital  and 
labor. 

F.  It  is  too  great  an  experiment. 

1.  Too  great  a  change  from  existing  methods.  (Ely. 
Outlines  of  Economics,  p.  405) 

(a)  There  is  nothing  in  our  system  of  govern¬ 
ment  or  industry  preliminary  to  it, 

(b)  Anglo-Saxon  institutions  are  always  a 
gradual  growth ;  evolution,  not  revolution. 

(c)  Drastic  legislation  is  seldom  good  legisla¬ 
tion. 

2.  On  too  large  a  scale. 

(a)  Too  large  territory. 

(b)  Too  much  capital  involved. 

(c)  Too  many  industries. 

(d)  Too  many  courts  required,  too  great  in 
expense. 

(e)  Too  great  variety  of  conditions. 


BRIEFS 


XXT 


3.  Experiments  should  always  be  tried  on  a  small 

scale. 

III.  Compulsory  Arbitration  is  impracticable. 

A.  The  system  has  failed  wherever  it  has  been  tried. 

1.  In  New  Zealand. 

(a)  169  strikes  have  occurred  in  the  first  25 
years  after  its  adoption.  (Research  Report 
no.  23,  National  Industrial  Conference 
Board  p.  31). 

(b)  Courts  have  been  unable  to  enforce  their 
awards. 

(c)  No  permanent  good  results  have  been 
shown. 

(d)  There  is  general  dissatisfaction.  Pros¬ 
perity  since  1895  not  due  to  Compulsory  Ar¬ 
bitration.  (Reeves.  State  Experiments  in 
Australia  and  ‘New  Zealand.  Vol.  II. 
p.  162) 

(e)  Conciliation  is  gradually  superceding 
Compulsory  Arbitration.  (Research  Re¬ 
port  No.  23,  National  Industrial  Confer¬ 
ence  Board,  p.  28) 

2.  In  Australia. 

(a)  Frequent  strikes  have  occurred. 

(b)  The  courts  have  been  unable  to  enforce 
their  awards. 

(c)  It  has  caused  disrespect  for  the  courts, 
and  for  law  and  authority. 

(d)  It  has  made  industrial  warfare  more  bitter. 

(e)  In  West  Australia  the  system  has  been 
abandoned. 

3.  In  Kansas. 

(a)  The  Coal  miners  struck  in  protest  the  day 
after  its  adoption. 

(b)  Union  leaders  refused  to  recognize  the 
law  and  were  sent  to  jail. 

(c)  Organized  labor  has  been  advised  to 
move  out  and  to  stay  out  of  the  state. 

(d)  The  feeling  between  Capital  and  Labor 
has  grown  more  bitter. 


XXVI 


BRIEFS 


B  Even  if  Compulsory  Arbitration  has  been  successful 
in  the  South  Sea  Islands  that  fact  would  prove 
nothing  for  the  United  States  because  conditions 
are  so  very  different.  (Research  Report  No.  23, 
National  Industrial  Conference  Board  p.  3). 

1.  In  size. 

(a)  New  Zealand  is  smaller  in  area  than 
Colorado. 

(b)  It  has  about  1,000,000  people,  less  than  one 
per  cent  of  the  population  of  the  U.S. 

2.  In  development. 

(a)  New  Zealand  has  very  little  modern  indus¬ 
try. 

(b)  Only  80,000  persons  employed  in  factories. 

(c)  There  were  only  four  strikes  in  the  two 
years  before  the  experiment  was  begun. 

(d)  Population  is  homogenous — 98  per  cent  of 
the  white  population  is  of  British  blood. 

(e)  Conditions  are  the  same  throughout  the 
two  small  islands  of  New  Zealand,  but  are 
very  different  in  the  different  sections  of 
our  vast  country. 

3.  Form  of  government. 

(a)  United  States  is  a  decentralized  or  federal 
government  while  New  Zealand  is  highly 
centralized. 

(b)  Non-interference  with  personal  liberty  has 
always  been  the  American  principle,  while 
New  Zealand  is  the  land  of  fads  and 
“isms.”  They  have  government  railroads, 
telegraphs,  telephones,  gas-plants,  electric 
plants,  government  insurance,  government 
mines  and  factories. 

(c)  In  New  Zealand  the  “invisible  government” 
is  pro-labor. 

C.  If  it  should  be  very  successful  in  Kansas,  that  fact 
would  prove  nothing  for  the  other  states. 

1.  Kansas  is  an  agricultural  state. 

2.  It  has  very  little  industry. 

3.  Union  men  make  a  very  small  part  of  the  vot¬ 
ing  population. 


BRIEFS  xxv  ii 

D,  Conditions  here  are  unfavorable  to  the  experiment. 

1.  Federal  form  of  government;  there  must  be  na¬ 

tional  and  state  courts. 

2.  Distrust  of  the  courts  by  workingmen.  (Indus¬ 
trial  Commission  14  -.46,  Monthly  Labor  Review 
10 : 33 7-45) 

E.  Compulsory  Arbitration  could  not  be  made  to  work 

out  here. 

1.  Awards  could  not  be  enforced  on  either  em¬ 
ployers  or  employees,  nor  their  sympathizers. 

(a)  How  could  any  court  compel  a  million  men 
to  resume  work  if  they  refused  to  do  so? 

(x)  By  fines?  How  collect  them?  It  is 
doubtful  whether  the  courts  could  reach 
the  union  treasury.  It  would  not  be 
practicable  to  fine  each  workman 
separately.  In  either  case  it  is  doubt¬ 
ful  whether  the  fine  could  be  collected. 
(Reconstruction  2:150) 

(y)  By  imprisonment?  How  imprison  the 
great  number  involved  in  any  of  the 
great  strikes.  There  are  not  enough 
jails  and  penitentiaries  to  hold  them. 

(z)  Mandatory  Injunction  proceedings  in 
the  Federal  Courts  failed  to  end  the 
bituminous  coal  strike  of  1919. 

(b)  The  great  corporations*  could  not  be  com¬ 
pelled  to  obey  an  award. 

(x)  They  would  prolong  litigation  until  the 
resources  of  the  unions  were  exhausted. 

(y)  They  would  flood  the  industrial  courts 
with  petty  cases  until  they  were  years 
behind  in  their  docket,  as  has  been  done 
in  Australia  and  New  Zealand. 

2.  It  is  open  to  too  great  abuses. 

(a)  Politics  will  influence  the  courts. 

(b)  Judges  are  often  financially  interested. 

3.  Impossible  to  get  a  just  decision. 

(a)  Courts  would  have  to  decide  what  is  a  fair 
wage  in  each  separate  trade,  or  a  minimum 
wage  as  in  done  in  New  Zealand. 


XXV111 


BRIEFS 


(b)  A  fair  wage  or  fair  minimum  wage  in  a 
small  town  would  not  be  fair  in  New  York 
City  or  Boston,  for  the  cost  of  living  is 
higher  in  the  latter  place. 

F.  There  is  general  public  opposition  and  distrust.  (Re¬ 
port  of  the  Industrial  Commission.  XIX:86l) 

1.  Opposed  by  workingmen.  (Report  of  the  In¬ 
dustrial  Commission  IV  1762  and  764  and  files  of 
the  American  Federationist). 

2.  Employers  also  oppose  it. 

3.  Scholars  and  statesmen  are  opposed  to  it. 

(a)  Carroll  D.  Wright,  late  Commissioner  of 
Labor.  (Forum.  15:323-31) 

(b)  President  Hadley  of  Yale. 

(c)  Charles  Francis  Adams. 

(d)  Prof.  John  R.  Commons  (American  Fed¬ 
erationist  24:25) 

(e)  William  J.  Bryan  (Commoner  20:3  Ja. 
’20) 


COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION’ 


Resolved,  That  Strikes  and  Lockouts  should  be  prohibited  by 
law  until  investigation  of  the  differences  between  employer 
and  employees  has  been  made  by  an  official  body  having  powei 
to  summon  witnesses,  to  administer  oath,  and  to  compel  the 
production  of  the  books  and  records  of  the  parties,  and  until 
the  findings  of  this  body  have  been  published. 


Introduction 


Affirmative 


A.  In  the  case  of  food  supply,  coal,  clothing,  and  all  pub¬ 
lic  utilities,  or  industries  affected  with  a  public  in¬ 
terest,  the  general  welfare  demands  uninterrupted 
service. 


B.  The  Affirmative  is  not  proposing  to  make  strikes  and 
lockouts  unlawful,  but  merely  claiming  that  the  dis¬ 
pute  must  first  be  investigated,  and  the  findings  of 
the  tribunal  published.  It  is  then  left  to  public 
opinion  to  enforce  the  award,  the  parties  still  hav¬ 
ing  the  right  to  call  a  strike  or  lockout. 


I.  Existing  conditions  in  the  industrial  relations  demand  a 
remedy. 

A.  There  are  great  evils  connected  with  industrial  war¬ 

fare. 

B.  Both  parties  are  injured. 

C.  The  general  public  is  always  injured,  sometimes  more 

than  either  antagonist. 

D.  Present  methods  do  not  afford  a  satisfactory  remedy. 


II.  Compulsory  Investigation  offers  the  desired  remedy. 

A  It  is  sound  in  theory. 

I.  Compulsory  Investigation  will  create  an  intel¬ 
ligent  and  fair  public  opinion. 

1  This  Brief  may  be  elaborated  by  referring  to  the  corresponding  points 
in  the  previous  brief. 


XXX 


BRIEFS 


2.  It  does  not  take  away  the  ultimate  rights  of 
either  employer  or  employee,  nor  compel  them 
to  accept  the  award. 

B.  The  welfare  of  the  people  demands  an  intelligent  pub¬ 

lic  opinion. 

C.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  investigate  the  differences 

between  employer  and  employee  and  to  publish  the 
findings. 

i.  Only  in  this  way  can  an  intelligent  public  opinion 
be  created. 

D.  Compulsory  Investigation  will  lessen  the  dangers  that 

threaten  our  institutions. 

III.  Compulsory  Investigation  is  practicable. 

A.  It  has  been  very  successful  wherever  tried. 

1.  In  Canada  it  has  been  a  success  since  1907. 

(a)  During  the  first  twelve  years  of  the  law 
there  were  only  24  strikes  within  the  scope 
of  the  Act  that  were  not  “averted  or  set¬ 
tled.” 

2.  In  Colorado  it  has  been  successfully  tried  after 
that  state  had  been  torn  by  industrial  warfare 
for  several  years.  (Monthly  Labor  Review  10: 
810-11  Mr.  ’20) 

3.  It  has  been  successfully  used  in  Denmark,  Nor¬ 
way  and  New  Zealand. 

B.  Conditions  in  this  country  generally  are  favorable  to 

its  adoption  here. 

C.  It  is  the  natural  remedy  of  the  age,  the  logical  next 

step. 

1.  No  better  remedy  has  ever  been  proposed. 

2.  It  is  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  age. 

3.  It  has  steadily  grown  in  favor. 

(a)  It  has  recently  been  adopted  in  Colorado, 
Norway,  Denmark  and  New  Zealand. 

(b)  It  has  been  recommended  by  many  of  our 
ablest  scholars  and  statesmen. 

(w)  Hon.  William  L.  McKenzie  King, 
author  of  the  Canadian  law. 

(x)  President  Wilson  recommended  it  to 
Congress  in  his  addresses  on  Aug. 
29,  1916  and  Dec.  5,  1916). 


BRIEFS 


XXXI 


(y)  William  J.  Bryan  (Commoner  20:3 
J a.  ’20) 

(z)  Charles  Francis  Adams.  (Report  on 
the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike,  1903) 

(c)  It  has  never  been  abandoned  by  any  coun¬ 
try  that  has  adopted  it. 

(d)  The  Transportation  Act  of  1920  is  a  de¬ 
cided  step  forward. 


Negative 


Introduction. 

A.  The  plan  here  proposed  can  do  very  little  towards  les¬ 
sening  industrial  warfare. 

1.  It  cannot  prevent  interruption  of  service. 

(a)  Strikes  will  occur  in  violation  of  the  law, 
as  they  have  in  Canada. 

(b)  Strikes  are  lawful  after  the  period  reserved 
for  investigation. 


I.  Compulsory  Investigation  is  unnecessary. 

A.  Strikes  are  not  a  sufficient  necessity. 

B.  There  are  now  strong  factors  making  for  industrial 

peace. 

II.  Compulsory  Investigation  is  unwise  and  undesirable. 

A.  It  is  wrong  in  principle. 

B.  It  is  unjust  to  employers  in  many  cases. 

1.  Employees  will  take  advantage  of  the  law  to  file 
grievances  that  would  not  be  presented  except 
for  the  Investigation  Law. 

C.  It  is  often  unfair  to  employees. 

1.  The  delay  will  give  employers  the  advantage. 

D.  It  would  destroy  present  methods  of  securing  indus¬ 

trial  peace. 

E.  It  is  too  great  an  experiment. 

III.  Compulsory  Investigation  is  impracticable. 

A.  It  has  failed  wherever  tried. 

1.  In  Canada.  (Bulletin  233  U.S.  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics;  Review  of  Reviews  55:190) 

(a)  It  applies  to  only  an  insignificantly  small 
part  of  the  industrial  disputes  of  the  Do¬ 
minion. 


XXX11 


BRIEFS 


(b)  There  were  204  illegal  and  18  legal  strikes 
and  lockouts  during  the  first  ten  years  of  the 
law. 

(c)  No  permanent  beneficial  results  have  been 
attained. 

2.  In  Colorado  (Monthly  Labor  Review  10:810-11 
Ap.  ’20) 

(a)  Strikes  have  occurred  in  violation  of  the 
law. 

(b)  Industrial  conditions  have  not  been  per¬ 
manently  improved. 

B.  Even  if  it  had  been  successful  in  Canada,  that  fact 

would  prove  nothing  for  the  United  States  because 

of  the  difference  in  industrial  conditions. 

1.  Canada  has  fewer  people  than  New  York  City 
and  Chicago. 

2.  Canada  is  sparsely  settled,  has  but  few  large 

cities,  and  but  little  modern  industry. 

C.  Conditions  here  are  unfavorable  to  the  experiment. 

D.  Compulsory  Investigation  could  not  be  made  to  work 

out  here. 

1.  Awards  could  not  be  enforced. 

(a)  They  have  not  been  enforced  in  Canada, 
where  there  have  been  thousands  of  viola¬ 
tions  of  the  law  and  onfy  23  prosecutions. 

(b)  American  labor  leaders  openly  declare  they 
will  not  obey  the  law  if  it  is  adopted. 

E.  There  is  general  public  opposition  and  distrust. 

1.  Employers  oppose  it. 

2.  Workingmen  are  against  it.  (See  files  of  Amer¬ 
ican  Federationist,  Literary  Digest  53:1581) 

3.  The  majority  of  scholars  and  statesmen  are  op¬ 
posed  to  it. 


* 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


An  asterisk  (*)  before  a  title  means  that  the  article  is  reprinted, 
complete  or  in  part,  in  this  volume.  A  dagger  (f)  is  used  to  indicate  a 
few  of  the  other  best  references. 


Bibliographies  and  Briefs 

Baker,  George  P.  and  Huntington,  Henry  B.  Principles  of 
argumentation.  Ginn  and  Co.  1905. 

An  affirmative  brief,  p.  234-5. 

Brookings,  W.  D.  and  Ringwalt,  R.  C.  Briefs  for  debates.  Long¬ 
mans,  Green  and  Co.  1895. 

A  national  board  of  arbitration  for  railroad  disputes,  p.  162-4.  Brief* 
and  bibliography. 

Bulletin  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics.  No.  233.  J1 
’18. 

p.  149-50.  Bibliography  of  operation  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  In¬ 
vestigation  Act  of  Canada. 

Carpenter,  Oliver  C.  Debate  outlines  on  public  questions. 
Broadway  Publishing  Co.  1912. 

Briefs  and  references,  p.  131-8. 

Gibson,  Laurence  M.  Handbook  for  literary  and  debating 
societies.  Hodder  &  Stoughton  (London)  1905. 

Ought  arbitration  in  trade  disputes  to  be  enforced  by  law.  Syllabi 
and  references,  p.  24-6. 

Independent.  88:260.  N.  6,  ’16.  Briefs  and  references.  E.  M. 
Phelps. 

Resolved,  That  a  compulsory  arbitration  law  should  be  enacted  to 
settle  all  labor  disputes  on  railroads  and  other  common  carriers. 

Labor  Gazette.  1 :4i-2.  Ja.  ’16.  Bibliography  of  official  docu¬ 
ments  of  concerted  wage  movements  of  railway  employes 
1912-1915. 

Labor  Gazette.  1  :i57-9.  N.  ’16.  Arbitration  of  railway  labor 
disputes. 

Library  of  Congress.  List  of  recent  references  on  industrial 
arbitration.  H.  H.  B.  Meyer  1920.  [mineographed] 

Library  of  Congress.  Select  list  of  references  on  industrial  ar¬ 
bitration.  Compiled  by  A.  P.  C.  Griffin.  1903. 

New  England  Triangular  Debate— Compulsory  arbitration  of 
labor  disputes  on  interstate  railroads,  Wilson,  1914. 

Resolved,  That  the  Federal  government  should  require  compulsory 
arbitration  of  labor  disputes  on  interstate  railroads. 


XXXIV 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


fPhelps,  Edith  M.  University  debaters’  annual,  1916-1917. 
Wilson.  1917. 

Chap.  III.  p.  99-146.  “Resolved,  that  Congress  should  establish  a 
permanent  board  of  arbitration  with  compulsory  powers  to  arbitrate  and 
to  settle  disputes  arising  between  employers  and  employees  of  railroads 
doing  interstate  business,  constitutionality  conceded.”  Coe  College  debate. 
Briefs,  bibliography,  and  speeches. 

Chap.  V.  p.  19 1-225.  “Resolved,  that  Capital  and  Labor  should  be 
compelled  to  settle  their  disputes  in  legally  established  courts  of  arbitra¬ 
tion.”  Columbia  University  debate.  Briefs,  bibliography  and  speeches. 

fPhelps,  Edith  M.  University  debaters’  annual,  1917-1918. 
Wilson,  1918. 

Chap.  I.  p.  1-53.  “Resolved,  that  Compulsory  Arbitration  should  be 
,  adopted  for  all  labor  controversies  involving  railroads  and  other  pub¬ 
lic  service  companies.”  University  of  Chicago  debate.  Briefs,  bibliog¬ 
raphy,  speeches. 

Chap.  IV.  p.  147-91.  “Resolved,  that  Congress  should  enact  legisla¬ 
tion,  providing  for  the  compulsory  arbitration  of  all  labor  disputes  in 
interstate  public  utilities  as  a  permanent  policy.”  University  of  Iowa 
debate.  Briefs,  bibliography,  speeches. 

Ringwalt,  R.  C.  Briefs  on  public  questions.  Longmans,  Green 
and  Co.  1906. 

Compulsory  Industrial  Arbitration,  p.  210-8.  Briefs  and  bibliography. 
Shurter,  E.  D.  and  Taylor,  C.  C.  Both  sides  of  100  public 
questions  briefly  debated.  Hinds,  Noble,  and  Eldredge.  1913. 

National  Board  of  Arbitration  for  Railroad  Disputes,  p.  142-3. 

University  of  North  Carolina  Record.  July  1917.  No.  148.  Ex¬ 
tension  Series  No.  22. 

p.  39-41.  “Resolved,  That  Congress  should  pass  a  law  requiring  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration  of  labor  disputes  where  a  greater  part  of  the  busi¬ 
ness  in  which  they  are  engaged  is  interstate  commerce.”  Bibliography  and 
brief  outline  of  the  argument. 

University  of  North  Carolina  Record.  Nov.  1917.  No.  152. 
Extension  Series  No.  26.  84P. 

“Resolved,  That  Congress  should  enact  a  law  providing  for  the  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration  of  industrial  disputes.”  Briefs,  bibliography  and  re¬ 
prints. 

[This  pamphlet,  especially  the  Brief,  is  largely  a  condensation  of 
the  second  edition  of  the  Debaters’  Handbook.] 

University  of  Oklahoma;  Extension  Division.  Bulletin  n.s.  137. 
University  Extension  Series.  No.  34.  Oct.  1,  1917.  ii2p. 

‘‘Resolved,  That  the  Federal  Government  should  require  compulsory 
arbitration  of  labor  disputes  on  interstate  railroads.”  Reprints  and 
bibliography. 


Books  and  Pamphlets 

*Adams,  Thomas  S.  and  Sumner,  Helen  L.  Labor  problems.  ' 
Macmillan  Co.  1905. 

Chap.  VIII.  p.  287-332.  The  Agencies  of  Industrial  Peace. 

Addresses  before  the  National  Convention  of  Employers  and 
Employees  at  Minneapolis,  September,  1902. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


XXXV 


Altgeld,  John  P.  Live  questions.  Donohue  and  Henneberry. 
1890. 

p.  7-21.  Protection  of  noncombatants  or  arbitration  of  strikes. 

American  Mining  Congress.  17th  Annual  Session  (Phoenix).  D. 
7,  ’14. 

p.  231-9.  Compulsory  arbitration.  Samuel  O.  Dunn.  * 

Barnett,  George  E.  and  McCabe,  David  A.  Mediation,  investi¬ 
gation  and  arbitration  in  industrial  disputes.  Appleton. 
1916. 

Barns,  William  E.  Labor  problem.  Harper  and  Bros.  1886. 

Chapter  X.  p.  231-55.  Trade  unions  and  arbitration. 

Bliss,  W.  D.  P.  Arbitration  and  conciliation  in  industrial  dis¬ 
putes.  Church  Union.  1895. 

*Bliss,  W.  D.  P.  New  encyclopedia  of  social  reform.  Funk 
and  Wagnalls.  1908. 

Article  on  arbitration  and  conciliation,  p.  58-65;  also  articles  on  strikes, 
strike-breaking,  boycotting,  blacklisting,  etc. 

Broadhead,  Henry.  State  regulation  of  labour  and  labour  dis¬ 
putes  in  New  Zealand.  P.  S.  King.  London.  1908. 

Carlton,  Frank  T.  The  history  and  problems  of  organized 
labor.  D.  C.  Heath  and  Co.  1911 

Chap.  IX.  p.  228-62.  Methods  of  promoting  industrial  peace. 
Chapman,  Sydney  J.  Work  and  wages.  Longmans,  Green  & 
Co.  1908. 

Vol.  It.  Chap.  IV.  p.  206-303.  Principles  and  methods  of  industrial 
peace. 

Clark,  Victor  S.  Labor  movement  in  Australasia,  A  study  in 
social  democracy.  Henry  Holt  and  Co.  1906. 

Chaps.  VII-X.  p.  138-245. 

Commons,  John  R.,  ed.  Trade  unionism  and  labor  problems. 
Ginn  &  Co.  1905. 

Introduction  p.  1-12  and  Chapter  VIII.  p.  195-221. 

Crompton,  H.  Industrial  conciliation.  P.  S.  King  &  Co.  Lon¬ 
don.  1876. 

Dawson,  William  H.  The  German  workman.  Scribners.  1906. 

Chap.  XIV.  p.  176-93.  Industrial  courts  of  arbitration. 

Dunn,  Samuel  O.  Regulation  of  railways.  D.  Appleton  & 
Co.  1918. 

Chap.  X.  p.  171-90.  Peaceful  settlement  of  labor  disputes  or  strikes. 

Eliot,  Charles  W.  Future  of  trade  unionism  and  capitalism  in 
a  democracy.  G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons.  1910. 

Ely,  Richard  T.  Labor  movement  in  America.  Macmillan  Co. 
1905. 


XXXVI 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Ely,  Richard  T.  Studies  in  the  evolution  of  industrial  society. 
Macmillan  Co.  1903. 

Part  II.  Chapter  X.  Industrial  peace. 

Friedman,  Elisha  M.  Labor  and  reconstruction  in  Europe. 
E.  P.  Dutton  &  Co.  1919. 

Gilman,  Nicholas  P.  Methods  of  industrial  peace.  Houghton, 
Mifflin  Co.  1904. 

Gray,  J.  Grathan.  Australasia  old  and  new.  Hodder  and 
Stoughton.  London.  1901. 

Groat,  George  G.  Introduction  to  the  study  of  organized  la¬ 
bor  in  America.  Macmillan.  1916. 

Chaps.  XII  and  XIII.  p.  204-38.  Arbitration. 

Hamilton,  William  F.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  industrial 
disputes.  Butterworth  &  Co.  1913. 

Howe,  Frederick  C.  Socialized  Germany.  Scribners.  1915. 

Chap.  XIII.  p.  182-91.  Labor  and  industrial  courts. 

Howell,  George.  Conflicts  of  capital  and  labor.  2nd  edition. 
Macmillan  Co.  1890. 

Chap.  XI.  p.  433-53.  Conciliation  and  arbitration  in  trade  disputes. 
Howell,  George.  Labor  legislation,  labor  movements,  and  labor 
leaders.  E.  P.  Dutton  and  Co.  1902. 

King,  Hon.  W.  L.  Mackenzie.  Industry  and  humanity.  Hough¬ 
ton,  Mifflin  Co.  1918. 

Chap.  VII.  p.  167-232.  Principles  underlying  peace. 

Knapp,  Martin  A.  Government  mediation  in  railway  labor  dis¬ 
putes,  an  Address  at  the  second  annual  convention  on  the 
National  Association  of  Railway  Commissioners.  Published 
by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  1909. 

Knoop,  Douglas.  Industrial  conciliation  and  arbitration.  P.  S. 
King,  London.  1905. 

Labour  Year  Book.  [Great  Britain].  Co-operative  printing 
society.  London. 

La  Follette,  Robert  M.  (ed.)  The  making  of  America.  John  D 
Morris  &  Co. 

Vol.  VIII  contains  the  following  articles: 

104-9.  The  limitations  of  conciliation  and  arbitration.  Samuel 
Gompers. 

109-17.  Is  compulsory  arbitration  practicable?  Seth  Low. 

118-26.  Objections  to  compulsory  arbitration.  Joseph  P.  Archibald. 

Lalor,  John  J.  Cyclopaedia  of  political  science,  political  econ¬ 
omy  and  political  history  of  the  United  States.  M.  B. 
Cary  &  Co.  1883. 

Vol.  II.  p.  503-5-  Articl*  on  industrial  arbitration  and  conciliation. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


xxxvii 

*Le  Rossignol,  James  E.  and  Stewart,  William  D.  State  social¬ 
ism  in  New  Zealand.  Thomas  Y.  Crowell  &  Co.  1910. 

Chap.  XIII.  p.  216-37.  The  Arbitration  act. 

Chap.  XIV.  p.  238-49.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  theory  and  practice. 
Chap.  XV.  p.  250-68.  Strikes. 

*Lloyd,  Henry  D.  Country  without  strikes.  Doubleday,  Page 
&  Co.  1900. 

Lloyd,  Henry  D.  Newest  England.  Doubleday,  Page  &  Co. 

1901. 

Lowell,  Josephine  Shaw.  Industrial  arbitration  and  concilia¬ 
tion.  G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons.  1893. 

’•‘McLaughlin,  A.  C.  and  Hart,  A.  B.  Cyclopedia  of  American 
government.  D.  Appleton  &  Co.  1904. 

Vol.  I.  p.  66-8.  Arbitration  of  labor  disputes.  C.  F.  Gettemy. 

McNeill,  George  E.  Labor  movement:  The  problem  of  today. 
A.  M.  Bridgman  &  Co.  1887. 

Chapter  20.  p.  497-507. 

Mabie,  E.  C.  and  White,  L.  D.  Compulsory  arbitration  of  la¬ 
bor  disputes  on  interstate  railroads.  Dartmouth-Brown- 
Williams  debate.  Wilson.  1914. 

Marot,  Helen.  American  labor  unions.  Henry  Holt.  1914. 

p.  149-61.  Arbitration. 

*Mitchell,  John.  Organized  labor.  American  Book  &  Bible 
House.  1903. 

Chap.  XXXVIII.  p.  337-46.  The  strike  versus  compulsory  arbitration. 
*Mote,  Carl  H.  Industrial  arbitration.  Bobbs-Merrill  Co. 
1916. 

National  Civic  Federation.  Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
conference  held  under  the  auspices  of  the  National  Civic 
Federation  at  New  York,  December,  1901.  G.  P.  Putnam's 
Sons.  1902. 

National  civic  federation  proceedings  twelfth  annual  meet¬ 
ing.  J.  J.  Little  and  Ives  Co.  1912. 

Contains  the  following  addresses: 

4-7.  A  plea  for  industrial  peace.  Cardinal  Gibbons. 

25-34.  Government  mediation  in  railroad  labor  disputes.  Martin  A. 

Knapp. 

34-9.  Mediation  and  arbitration  of  railway  labor  disputes  in  the 
United  States.  Charles  P.  Neill. 

National  industrial  conference  board,  15  Beacon  St.,  Boston, 

Mass.  Issues  a  series  of  “Research  Reports.” 

No.  5.  The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act.  28  p. 
April,  1918. 

No.  10.  Arbitration  and  wage-fixing  in  Australia.  52  p.  Oct.,  1918. 
No.  21.  Works  councils  in  the  United  States.  135  p.  Oct.,  1910. 
*No.  23.  Conciliation  and  arbitration  in  New  Zealand  46  p.  Dec., 

1919. 

No.  26.  A  Works  council  manual.  32  p.  Feb.,  1920. 


XXXV111 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Palgrave,  R.  H.  I.  Dictionary  of  political  economy.  Macmil¬ 
lan  &  Co.  London.  1900. 

Vol.  I.  p.  51. 

Parsons,  Frank.  Story  of  New  Zealand.  C.  F.  Taylor.  1904. 
*Peters,  John  P.  (ed.)  Labor  and  capital.  A  discussion  of  the 
relation  of  employer  and  employed.  G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons. 
1902. 

Pigou,  A.  C.  Principles  and  methods  of  industrial  peace. 
Macmillan  Co.  1905. 

Rankin,  M.  T.  Arbitration  and  conciliation  in  Australasia.  Al¬ 
len  and  Unwin.  1916. 

*Reeves,  W.  Pember.  State  experiments  in  Australia  and  New 
Zealand.  Grant  Richards.  London.  1902. 

Vol.  II.  p.  69-181. 

^Report  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  the  matter  of  the  con¬ 
troversy  between  the  Eastern  Railroads  and  the  Brotherhood 
of  Locomotive  Engineers.  1912. 

General  considerations,  p.  86-109. 

Minority  report,  p.  121-3. 

Scholefield,  Guy  H.  New  Zealand  in  evolution.  Charles  Scrib¬ 
ner’s  Sons.  1909. 

Stockett,  J.  Noble.  The  arbitral  determination  of  railway 
wages.  Houghton,  Mifflin  Co.  1918. 

Stuffern,  Arthur  E.  Conciliation  and  arbitration  in  the  coal 
industry  of  America.  Houghton,  Mifflin  Co.  1915. 

Thompson,  Slason  (ed.)  The  Railway  library  1911.  Gunthorp- 
Warren  Co.  1912. 

p.  225-8.  Arbitration  of  railway  labor  disputes.  F.  O.  Melcher. 

^Trachtenberg,  Alexander  L.  The  American  Labor  Year  Book. 
Rand  School  of  Social  Science.  New  York  City. 

Vol.  1.  1916. 

Vol.  2.  1917-18,  p.  136  et  seq. 

Vol.  3.  1919-20. 

*Webb,  Sidney  and  Beatrice.  Industrial  democracy.  Long¬ 
mans,  Green  &  Co.  1902. 

Womer,  Parley  P.  The  Church  and  the  labor  conflict.  Mac¬ 
millan.  1913. 

Chap.  XI.  p.  228-50.  The  Establishment  of  Labor  Courts. 

Wright,  Carroll  D.  Industrial  conciliation  and  arbitration. 
Rand,  Avery  &  Co.  1881. 

Wright,  Carroll  D.  Industrial  evolution  of  the  United  States. 
Charles  Scribner’s  Sons.  1901. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


XXXIX 


Periodicals 

American  Catholic  Quarterly.  25:109-19.  Ja.  ’00.  Industrial  ar¬ 
bitration.  Rev.  Rene  Holaind. 

American  Economic  Association,  Publications,  3d  series.  10 : 

158-79-  Ap.  ’09.  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Act.  A.  Shortt. 
American  Economic  Review.  5  :sup245-69.  Mr.  ’15.  Public  regu¬ 
lation  of  railway  wages.  Frank  H.  Dixon. 

*  American  Economic  Review.  6:324-4 2.  Je.  T6.  Wage  theories 

in  industrial  arbitration.  Wilson  Compton. 

American  Economic  Review.  7:195-8.  Mr.  T  7.  Arbitration 
awards  under  the  Erdman  and  Newlands  acts.  D.  A.  Mc¬ 
Cabe. 

American  Employer.  2:153-8.  O.  ’13.  Compulsory  labor  arbi¬ 
tration.  Hon.  Joseph  M.  Brown. 

Message  of  the  Governor  of  Georgia. 

American  Federationist.  8:38-42.  F.  ’01.  As  to  compulsory 
arbitration.  Henry  White. 

American  Federationist.  8:48-9.  F.  ’oi.  The  right  “to  strike 
at  will.”  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  8:107-14.  Ap.  ’01.  American  trade 
unions  and  compulsory  arbitration.  Walter  MacArthur. 
American  Federationist.  9:307-10.  Je.  ’02.  Limitations  of  con¬ 
ciliation  and  arbitration.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  15:447.  Je  ’08.  Industrial  Disputes  Act 
of  Canada.  John  A.  Flett. 

*  American  Federationist.  20:17-31.  Ja.  ’13.  Compulsory  ar¬ 

bitration  in  the  railroad  engineers’  award.  Samuel  Gom¬ 
pers. 

American  Federationist.  20:115-25.  F.  ’13.  Tying  workers  to 
their  tasks  through  compulsory  government  investigation. 
Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  20:209-14.  Mr.  ’13.  Industrial  peace: 

Sins  committed  in  its  name  (editorial).  Samuel  Gompers. 
f  American  Federationist.  21 :3i6-20.  Ap.  T4.  Lesson  for  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitrationists.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  21 :73 1-3.  S.  ’14.  Compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion’s  latest  evangelist.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  22:843-5.  O.  ’15.  Chicago’s  strikes — 
their  lesson.  V.  A.  Sorray. 

American  Federationist.  22:853-4.  O.  ’15.  Invasion  by  commis¬ 
sion.  Samuel  Gompers. 


xl 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


American  Federationist.  22:1041-7.  D.  ’15.  That  invasion  by 
commission  editorial.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  23:437-52.  Je.  T6.  Benevolent  com¬ 
pulsion  in  Colorado.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  23:929-36.  O.  T6.  Compulsory  service 
or  freedom,  which?  Samuel  Gompers. 

fAmerican  Federationist.  23:1146-8.  D.  ’16.  The  Railroad 
Brotherhoods’  strike.  [Extract  from  the  Report  of  the  ex¬ 
ecutive  council  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to 
Baltimore  Convention.] 

fAmerican  Federationist.  24:21-5.  Ja.  ’i 7.  Compulsory  service 
unconstitutional.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  24:45-6.  Ja.  ’17.  Freedom  must  not  be 
surrendered.  Samuel  Gompers. 

fAmerican  Federationist.  24:  126-7.  F.  ’17.  The  yoke  will  not 
be  worn.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  24:201-3.  Mr.  ’17.  Freedom  gives 
national  virility.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  24:290-1.  Ap.  ’i 7.  Five  to  four  on 
slavery.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Federationist.  26:142-3.  F.  ’19.  Industrial  arbitration 
in  Australia.  George  S.  Beeby. 

fAmerican  Federationist.  26:  1046-8.  N.  ’19.  Era  of  slavery 
has  passed.  Samuel  Gompers. 

fAmerican  Industries.  16:41.  Jl.  ’16.  Is  the  compulsory  ar¬ 
bitration  system  doomed  ? 

American  Industries.  17:21-3.  D.  ’16.  Compulsory  arbitration 
in  Australia  fails.  A.  St.  Ledger. 

American  Journal  of  Politics.  5:487.  N.  ’94.  Compulsory  arbi¬ 
tration.  D.  M.  Fredericksen. 

American  Journal  of  Social  Science.  21  :i47~58.  S.  ’85.  Arbitra¬ 
tion  of  labor  disputes.  Rev.  Washington  Gladden. 

American  Journal  of  Social  Science.  28:66-85.  O.  '91.  Wisdom 
is  better  than  weapons  of  war.  Mrs.  C.  R.  Lowell. 

American  Journal  of  Social  Science.  28:86-100.  O.  ’91.  Com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration.  Seymour  Dexter. 

American  Journal  of  Social  Science.  31  :lxiii-lxxii.  Ja.  ’94 
Compulsory  arbitration.  Rev.  H.  L.  Wayland. 

American  Labor  Legislation  Review.  5:756-60.  D.  '15.  Trade 
unions  and  trade  disputes. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


xli 


American  Law  Review.  28:595-7.  Ag.  ’94.  Arbitration  in  con¬ 
tests  between  capital  and  labor. 

American  Law  Review.  51 1801-82.  N.  ’17.  Power  and  duty 
of  the  state  to  settle  disputes  between  employer  and  em¬ 
ployees.  George  S.  Ramsay. 

American  Machinist.  24:901-4.  Ag.  8,  '01.  Industrial  arbitra¬ 
tion.  Chauncey  H.  Castle. 

American  Magazine  of  Civics.  8:337.  Ap.  '96.  Legislative 
remedy  for  labor  disputes.  H.  A.  Drake. 

American  Political  Science  Review.  3 :209-io.  My.  ’09.  Arbitra¬ 
tion  amendment  in  New  Zealand.  William  M.  Leiserson. 
Annalist.  8:260.  Ag.  28,  ’16.  To  end  great  strikes  forever. 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  20:29-34.  Jl.  ’02.  Limitations 
of  conciliation  and  arbitration.  Samuel  Gompers. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  24:285-95.  S.  ’04.  Arbitra¬ 
tion  of  industrial  disputes.  E.  E.  Clark. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  33  :440-7.  Mr.  7,  ’09.  Pres¬ 
ent  state  of  labor  legislation  in  Australia  and  New  Zea¬ 
land.  Victor  S.  Clark. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  Vol.  36.  No.  2.  S.  ’10  is  de¬ 
voted  entirely  to  “the  settlement  of  labor  disputes”  and 
contains  the  following  and  several  others: 

*  p.  302-10.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  the  United  States. 
Cornelius  J.  Doyle. 

f  p.  311-20.  Necessity  of  industrial  arbitration.  Rabbi  Joseph 
Krauskoff. 

p.  419-37.  Canadian  industrial  disputes  investigation  act. 
F.  A.  Acland. 

p.  438-44.  Settlement  and  prevention  of  industrial  disputes 
in  New  Zealand.  Paul  Kennaday. 
p.  445-52.  German  courts  for  the  arbitration  of  industrial 
disputes.  Harris  Weinstock. 

t Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  37:203-11.  Ja.  *ii.  Indus¬ 
trial  arbitration  in  Australia.  P.  S.  Eldershaw  and  P.  P. 
Olden. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  44:  1-144.  N.  '12.  The  out¬ 
look  for  industrial  peace. 

p.  1-9.  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Act.  Marcus  M. 
Marks. 

p.  18-27.  Conditions  fundamental  to  industrial  peace. 
George  B.  Hugo. 


xlii 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  69:140-279.  Ja.  ’17.  Con¬ 
tains  the  following: 

t  p.  140-9.  Evolution  of  legal  remedies  as  a  substitute 
for  violence  and  strikes.  Henry  W.  Ballentine. 

f  p.  150-6.  The  advantages  and  defects  of  compulsory 
arbitration.  Frank  T.  Carlton, 
p.  157-69.  Canadian  legislation  concerning  industrial 
disputes.  F.  A.  Acland. 

p.  170-2.  The  attitude  of  organized  labor  toward  the 
Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act.  A.  B. 
Garretson. 

p.  173-82.  The  trend  of  voluntary  conciliation  and  ar¬ 
bitration  in  labor  disputes.  George  M.  Janes, 
p.  223-8.  Federal  arbitration  legislation.  L.  E.  Hoff¬ 
man. 

t  p.  229-36.  Why  I  believe  the  interstate  commerce  com¬ 
mission  should  have  power  to  fix  wages  and  hours  of 
labor  on  interstate  carriers.  Oscar  W.  Underwood 
p.  237-46.  Shall  the  interstate  commerce  commission  and 
the  state  public  utility  commissions  fix  wages  on  the  rail¬ 
roads  and  on  local  public  utilities?  Delos  F.  Wilcox. 

t  p.  268-79.  Government  arbitration  and  mediation.  James 
T.  Young. 

Arena.  7:  30-6.  D.  ’92.  Compulsory  arbitration.  Rev.  Ly¬ 
man  Abbott. 

Arena.  7:306-11.  F.  ’93.  Compulsory  national  arbitration. 
Rabbi  Solomon  Schindler. 

Arena.  7 :  587-94.  Ap.  ’93.  Compulsory  arbitration — a  reply. 
C.  A.  Reed. 

Arena.  16 : 622.  S.  ’96.  Compulsory  arbitration — A  prac¬ 
ticable  remedy.  N.  T.  Mason. 

*Arena.  17:663.  Mr.  ’97.  Compulsory  arbitration.  Frank 
Parsons. 

Arena.  17:922-8.  My.  ’97.  Conciliation  vs.  arbitration.  Cour¬ 
tenay  De  Kalb. 

Arena.  23:499-515.  My.  '00.  Delusion  of  compulsory  arbi¬ 
tration.  P.  H.  Coggins. 

Arena.  28:  561-8.  D.  ’02.  Private  property  and  public  rights. 
Edwin  Maxey. 

Arena.  29:  1-25.  Ja.  ’03.  Great  coal  strike  and  its  lessons. 
Ernest  H.  Crosby. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


xliii 


fArena.  31:1-11.  Ja.  ’04.  Abolition  of  strikes  and  lockouts. 
Frank  Parsons. 

fArena.  31:464-71.  My.  ’04.  Political  revolution  in  New  Zea¬ 
land  which  laid  the  foundation  for  the  establishment  of 
industrial  arbitration  on  demand.  Frank  Parsons. 

Arena.  32:303.  S.  ’04.  Industrial  peace  through  arbitration. 
Arena.  39:64-5.  Ja.  '08.  Principles  of  arbitration.  F.  M. 
Willis. 

Arena  39:532-8.  My.  ’08.  Compulsory  arbitration.  T. 
Schroeder. 

fArena.  40:  137-41.  S.  '08.  Compulsory  arbitration  under 
storm  sails.  Edward  Tregear. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  67:  34-44.  Ja.  ’91.  Compulsory  arbitration. 
Charles  W.  Clark. 

f  Atlantic  Monthly.  90:667-74.  N.  '02.  Australasian  cures  for 
coal  wars.  H.  D.  Lloyd. 

f Atlantic  Monthly.  111:533-9.  Ap.  ’13.  Industrial  peace  or 
war.  Everett  P.  Wheeler. 

*Bellman.  22:35.  Ja.  13,  '17.  Compulsory  arbitration. 
Bulletin  International  Railway  Congress  Assn.  [English  edition] 
27:300-14.  The  question  of  compulsory  arbitration  in  the 
railway  service.  Marcel  Peschaud. 

Business  Digest.  4:261-2.  N.  7,  T7.  Does  Canada's  compul¬ 
sory  act  compel? 

*Call  of  the  Moose,  April  and  May,  1914.  Industrial  peace. 
Hon.  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King. 

Canadian  Law  Times.  36:207-22.  Mr.  ’16.  Canadian  legisla¬ 
tion  concerning  industrial  disputes.  F.  A.  Acland. 

Canadian  Magazine.  29:247-8.  Jl.  ’07.  An  instance  of  indus¬ 
trial  arbitration.  J.  F.  Mackay. 

Cassier’s  Magazine.  23:558-65.  F.  '03.  Remedy  for  strikes, 
or  investigation  and  publicity  as  opposed  to  compulsory 
arbitration.  Charles  Francis  Adams. 

Catholic  World.  72:  145-57.  N.  '00.  Country  without  strikes. 
Rev.  John  A.  Ryan. 

Central  Law  Journal.  83:  122-3.  Ag.  17,  ’17.  Australian  arbi¬ 
tration  court  effective  against  strikes.  J.  S.  Ryan. 

Central  Law  Journal.  83:199-200.  S.  22,  '16.  Compulsory  ar¬ 
bitration  the  logical  evolution  of  workmen’s  compensation 

acts. 


xliv 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Century.  31  (n.  s.  9)  :946-52.  Ap.  '86.  Strikes,  lockouts  and 
arbitration.  George  M.  Powell. 

Century.  90  (n.  s.  68)  :433-40.  Jl.  ’15.  A  way  to  industrial  peace. 
George  Creel. 

Charities  and  the  Commons.  21  \71-2.  O.  3,  '08.  To  arbitrate  or 
conciliate. 

Chautauquan.  34:10.  O.  ’01.  Society’s  right  to  industrial  peace. 

Chicago  Legal  News.  49:6.  Ag.  3,  ’16.  Organized  arbitration 
of  trade  disputes.  S.  Rosenbaum. 

Collier’s  Weekly.  37:21-3.  Je.  30,  '06.  The  arbitration  courts 
of  Australia.  Florence  F.  Kelly. 

^Colliery  Engineer.  34:294-6.  D.  '13.  Arbitration  as  a  factor  in 
the  mining  industry.  William  B.  Wilson. 

^Commoner.  20:3.  Ja.  ’20.  An  industrial  peace  plan.  William 
J.  Bryan. 

Contemporary  Review.  93 :  308-25.  Mr.  ’08.  Arbitration  courts 
and  wages  boards  in  Australasia.  J.  R.  Macdonald. 

Current  Literature.  27:158.  F.  ’00.  Compulsory  arbitration  in 
New  Zealand.  Henry  D.  Lloyd. 

Current  Literature.  29:513-15.  N.  ’00.  Compulsory  arbitration 
in  New  Zealand. 

fCurrent  Literature.  33 :  596.  N.  ’02.  Compulsory  arbitration. 
William  A.  Stone. 

fCurrent  Literature.  34:86.  Ja.  ’03.  Better  than  strikes.  W. 
Pember  Reeves. 

Current  Opinion.  57:68-9.  Jl.  ’14.  Groping  towards  industrial 
peace. 

Current  Opinion.  68 :  472-8.  Ap.  ’20.  How  Kansas  broke  a  strike 
and  solved  the  labor  problem.  Gov.  Henry  J.  Allen. 

Economic  Journal.  8:461-73.  N.  ’98.  Industrial  conciliation — a 
retrospect.  L.  L.  Price. 

Economic  Journal.  9:85.  Mr.  ’99.  Compulsory  arbitration. 

Economic  Journal.  12:320.  S.  '02.  Mr.  Wise’s  (New  South 
Wales)  Industrial  Arbitration  Act.  W.  Pember  Reeves. 

Economic  Journal.  25:321-8.  S.  ’15.  Artificial  regulation  of 
wages  in  Australia.  G.  S.  Beeby. 

Economic  Journal.  25:329-46.  S.  ’15.  Industrial  arbitration  in 
New  South  Wales.  F.  A.  A.  Russell. 

Economic  World,  n.  s.  13:43-5.  Ja.  13,  ’17.  Canadian  compul¬ 
sory  labor  disputes  investigation  act:  Is  it  a  success  in 
Canada  and  does  it  promise  a  solution  for  the  United 
States?  R.  M.  Easley. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


xlv 


Economist  73 :  557-8.  S.  16,  ’n.  The  prevention  of  strikes  by 
law. 

Edinburgh  Review.  191 :  1-21.  Ja.  ’oo.  Conciliation  and  arbi¬ 
tration  in  trade  disputes. 

Edinburgh  Review.  219:  195-21 1.  Ja.  ’14.  The  compulsory  settle¬ 
ment  of  industrial  disputes.  W.  G.  Constable. 

Electric  Railway  Journal.  40:730.  O.  10,  '12.  Extract  from  the 
Australasian  of  Je.  15,  ’12. 

Electric  Railway  Journal.  40:759.  O.  10,  ’12.  Arbitration  in 
Australia.  J.  S.  Badger. 

Electric  Railway  Journal.  41 :  212-24.  F.  1,  ’13.  Government  me¬ 
diation  in  railroad  labor  disputes.  Seth  Low. 

Electric  Railway  Journal.  41:318-19.  F.  22,  ’13.  Needed 
amendment  of  the  Erdman  Act. 

Electric  Railway  Journal.  41:791.  My.  3,  ’13.  Compulsory 
arbitration. 

Electric  Railway  Journal.  46:  174-5.  Jb  3B  ’15.  Labor  and  arbi¬ 
tration. 

Electric  Railway  Journal.  48:  1106-9.  N.  25,  T6.  Labor  disputes 
and  public  utilities. 

Engineering  Magazine.  20:920-6.  F.  'oi.  Arbitration  of  labor 
questions  necessary  to  industrial  ascendancy.  Charles  B. 
Going. 

Engineering  Magazine.  24:149-51.  Ag.  i,  '02.  Arbitration  or 
litigation. 

Engineering  Magazine.  44:597-8.  Ja.  ’13.  Railway  arbitration 
(editorial) . 

Engineering  Magazine.  51 :  748-9.  Ag.  T6.  Are  labor  troubles 
preventable? 

Engineering  News.  69:733-4.  Ap.  10,  '13.  Legislation  to  avoid 
railway  strikes. 

Engineering  News-Record.  82:1233.  Je.  19,  T9.  To  arbitrate 
jurisdictional  building  strikes. 

Financial  Review  of  Reviews.  7:5-13.  O.  Ti.  Proposed  indus¬ 
trial  court  for  settlement  of  labor  disputes.  C.  W.  Macara. 

Fortnightly  Review.  97:585-98.  Ap.  T2.  (n.  s.  vol.  91).  Anti¬ 
strike  legislation  in  Australasia.  Sidney  Low. 

Forum.  1 : 307-13.  Je.  '86.  Arbitration  and  labor  disputes. 
Thomas  M.  Cooley. 

Forum.  8:406-16.  D.  ’89.  Do  we  want  industrial  peace?  W.  G. 
Sumner. 


xlvi 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


* 

Forum.  14:  14-25.  S.  ’92.  Lesson  of  Homestead;  A  remedy  for 
labor  troubles.  Chauncey  F.  Black. 

fForum.  15:323-31.  My.  ’93.  Compulsory  arbitration  an  im¬ 
possible  remedy.  Carroll  D.  Wright. 

Forum.  18:  1-19.  S.  ’94.  A  lesson  of  recent  civil  disorders. 
T.  M.  Cooley. 

Forum.  30:737-51.  F.  ’01 .  American  trade-unions  and  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration.  W.  MacArthur. 

tForum.  48:553-64.  N.  ’12.  Industrial  war.  Hugo  H.  Lusk. 

Forum.  60 :  267-9.  S.  T8.  Labor  regulation :  the  problem  of  the 
war  labor  policies  board.  William  B.  Wilson. 

Green  Bag.  19:694-701.  D.  ’07.  Industrial  peace  legislation  in 
Canada.  John  King. 

Gunton’s  Magazine.  10:  138.  F.  ’96.  Compulsory  arbitration. 
Jerome  Dowd. 

Gunton’s  Magazine.  14 :  236.  Ap.  ’98.  Industrial  arbitration  in 
Congress.  Carroll  D.  Wright. 

Gunton’s  Magazine.  23:371.  N.  ’02.  Triumph  of  arbitration. 

Gunton’s  Magazine.  25:110-5.  A g.  ’03.  A  permanent  labor 
Court  of  Appeals. 

Gunton’s  Magazine.  25 : 369-72 .  O.  ’03.  New  plan  of  arbitration. 

Gunton's  Magazine.  27 :246-56.  S.  '04.  Industrial  peace. 

Harper’s  Weekly.  54:9-10.  N.  30,  T2.  The  “get  together”  idea. 
Robert  Sloss. 

Harper’s  Magazine.  131 :  675-80.  Party  of  the  third  part.  W.  E. 
Weyl. 

Harvard  Graduates’  Magazine.  28:14-25.  S.  T9.  Arbitration  in 
labor  disputes.  R.  D.  Weston. 

Harvard  Law  Review.  29:13-39.  N.  ’15.  A  new  province  for 
law  and  order.  Henry  B.  Higgins. 

Harvard  Law  Review.  32:189-217.  Ja.  T9.  New  province  of 
law  and  order.  Henry  B.  Higgins. 

Harvard  Law  Review.  32:892-901.  Je.  T9.  Effect  of  an  increase 
in  the  living  wage  by  a  court  of  industrial  arbitration  upon 
vested  rights  and  duties  under  pre-existing  awards.  W.  J. 
Brown. 

Harvey’s  Weekly.  3:6.  Ap.  3,  ’20.  Mr.  Gompers  objects. 

Independent.  50:657.  S.  1.  ’98.  Arbitration  in  railway  affairs. 

Independent.  51 :202g-^o.  Jl.  27,  ’99.  Compulsory  arbitration. 

Independent.  52:1274.  My.  24,  ’00.  New  Zealand’s  remedy  for 
strikes. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


xlvii 


Independent.  52 :  2423-4.  O.  4,  ’oo.  Benefits  of  arbitration.  Car¬ 
dinal  Gibbons. 

Independent.  53:2742-3.  N.  7,  ’01.  Labor  situation  in  New  Zea¬ 
land.  Edward  Tregear. 

Independent.  54:1835-7.  Jl.  31,  ’02.  Industrial  arbitration  in 
Australia.  H.  T.  Burgess. 

Independent.  54:1850-1.  Jl.  31,  ’02.  Constitution  government 

in  industry. 

Independent.  54:2065-8.  Ag.  28,  ’02.  National  federation.  R.  M. 
Easley. 

independent.  54:2219-20.  S.  18,  ’02.  Compulsory  arbitration. 
William  A.  Stone. 

Independent-  54:2228-30.  S.  18,  ’02.  Dictation  by  the  unions. 
John  Mitchell. 

Independent.  54 :2378-9.  O.  2,  ’02.  Compulsory  arbitration. 
Independent.  54 :  2446-7.  O.  16,  ’02.  Strike  should  be  arbitrated. 
Cardinal  Gibbons. 

independent.  54:2681-2.  N.  13,  ’02.  Do  we  want  compul¬ 
sory  arbitration?  John  B.  Clark, 
independent.  55 :  1908-10.  Ag.  13,  ’03.  Industrial  arbitration 
in  New  Zealand.  Edward  Tregear. 

Independent.  56:357-9.  F.  18,  ’04.  Arbitration  in  New  Zealand. 
Richard  J.  Sheldon. 

Independent.  56:1440-4.  Je.  23,  ’04.  Arbitration,  conciliation, 
trade  agreement.  John  R.  Commons. 

Independent.  65 :  1049-52.  N.  5,  ’08.  Canada’s  labor  dispute  act. 
W.  R.  Givens. 

Independent.  69:1467-8.  D.  29,  ’10.  Compulsory  arbitration  in 
France. 

Independent.  71  :552-3.  S.  7,  ’11.  Labor  arbitration  on  trial 
(editorial). 

♦Independent.  72:885-7.  Ap.  25,  ’12.  Has  compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion  failed?  Edward  Tregear. 

Independent.  72:908-9.  Ap.  25,  ’12.  Compulsory  arbitration, 
(editorial). 

♦Independent.  74:273-5.  F.  6,  ’13.  The  solution  of  industrial 
peace. 

Independent.  75:182-4.  Jl.  24,  ’13.  The  amended  Erdman  act. 
Independent.  87:324-5.  S.  4,  ’16.  Canada's  solution  of  the  rail¬ 
road  problem. 

Independent.  88:62-4.  O.  9,  ’16.  Shall  force  or  reason  rule. 
Charles  E.  Hughes. 


xlviii 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


♦Independent.  88:139.  O.  23,  ’16.  Where  do  the  people  come 
in? 

♦Independent.  89:  142-4.  Ja.  22,  ’17.  The  right  to  strike.  Austin 
B.  Garretson. 

♦Independent.  89:  143-4.  Ja.  22,  ’17.  Trial  by  jury.  Elisha  Lee. 

Independent.  100:35-7.  N.  1,  T9.  Congress  considers  strikes. 

flndependent.  101 :  385-6,  409-10.  Mr.  13,  ’20.  Let  the  people 
freeze.  Gov.  Henry  J.  Allen. 

Independent  Review  (London).  9:310-23.  Je.  ’06.  Conciliation 
and  arbitration  in  trade  disputes.  I.  H.  Mitchell. 

Industrial  Management.  59  ’.290-3.  Ap.  ’20.  The  Kansas  Court 
of  Industrial  Relations :  an  attempt  that  is  being  watched 
with  keenest  interest.  P.  F.  Walker. 

International  Socialist  Review.  9:444-50.  D.  ’08.  New  Zealand 
myth.  R.  R.  LaMonte. 

International  Socialist  Review.  17:458-9.  F.  T7.  Compulsory  ar¬ 
bitration  in  Australia.  Scott  Bennett. 

Iron  Trade  Review.  63:255-7.  Ag.  1,  T8.  Compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion  is  opposed  by  investigators  of  British  industrial  un¬ 
rest.  J.  Horton. 

Iron  Trade  Review.  65:1 272-3.  N.  6,  T9.  Seek  national  indus¬ 
trial  court :  Society  of  industrial  engineers  in  national  con¬ 
vention  urges  president  to  establish  agency  with  powers 
to  enforce  decisions. 

Iron  Trade  Review.  66:169-71.  Ja.  8,  ’20.  Offer  national  arbi¬ 
tration  plan. 

♦Iron  Trade  Review.  66:171.  Ja.  8,  ’20.  Voluntary  arbitration 
not  the  solution,  says  Judge  Gary. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies.  19:264-9.  Ap.  ’01.  State  ac¬ 
tivities  in  relation  to  labor  in  the  United  States :  industrial 
conciliation  and  arbitration.  W.  F.  Willoughby. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies.  34:29 -37.  1916.  Arbitration 
and  control.  George  M.  Janes. 

Journal  American  Social  Science  Association.  21:147-58.  ’86. 

Arbitration  of  labor  disputes.  Washington  Gladden. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  16:88-93.  F.  ’08.  Settlement  of 
industrial  disputes  in  Canada.  W.  W.  Edgar. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  24:254-83.  Mr.  T6.  Settlement 
of  disputes  under  agreements  in  the  anthracite  industry. 
E.  Sydenstricker. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  26:425-60.  My.  T8.  War  labor 
program  and  its  administration.  L.  C.  Marshall. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


xlix 


Journal  of  Political  Economy.  26:882-900.  N.  ’18.  Compulsory 
arbitration  in  Great  Britain  during  the  war.  Milton  Moses. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  27:421-56.  Je.  ’19.  Work  of  wage 
adjustment  boards.  A.  M.  Bing. 

Journal  of  the  Society  of  Comparative  Legislation,  n.s.  10:262- 
5.  D.  ’10.  Review  of  legislation,  1901.  New  South  Wales. 
E.  L.  de  Hart. 

Journal  of  the  Society  of  Comparative  Legislation,  n.s.  10:285- 
9.  D.  ’02.  Review  of  legislation,  1901,  West  Australia.  R.  W. 
Lee. 

Juridical  Review.  14:394-403.  D  ’02.  Industrial  arbitration  in 
New  South  Wales.  F.  R.  Sanderson. 

Labor  Gazette.  1 :2i.  N  ’15.  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Act. 

Labor  Gazette.  1 :  155.  N.  T6.  The  operation  of  the  Canadian 
Industrial  Disputes  Act. 

Labor  Gazette.  1 :  156.  N.  T6.  Law  to  prevent  strikes.  Offi¬ 
cial  studies  of  anti-strike  legislation. 

Law  and  Labor.  1 :  1-4.  O.  T9.  Two  bills  for  the  better  pro¬ 
tection  of  public  welfare  against  unwarranted  strikes  and 
lockouts. 

Law  and  Labor.  1:5.  D.  T9.  The  President’s  appeal  for  arbi¬ 
tration,  October  24th,  1919. 

*Law  and  Labor.  1:5-6.  D.  ’19.  The  President’s  statement  on 
October  25th. 

Law  and  Labor.  1 :  7-8.  D.  ’19.  Acting  President  Lewis’s  reply 
to  the  President,  October  30th. 

Law  and  Labor.  1 :  20-3.  D.  T9.  Labor  provisions  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  railroad  legislation. 

*Law  and  Labor.  1:23.  D.  ’19.  Organized  labor  and  the  rail¬ 
road  bills. 

*Law  and  Labor.  2:31-3.  F.  ’20.  The  Kansas  Industrial  Court 
Bill. 

*Law  and  Labor.  2:45.  F.  ’20.  The  National  Grange  and  the 
Cummins  Bill. 

Law  and  Labor.  2  :54-7.  Mr.  ’20.  Labor  provisions  of  the  Rail¬ 
road  Bill. 

*Law  and  Labor.  2:85-9.  Ap.  ’20.  Address  of  Governor  Allen. 

Literary  Digest.  51  :890-i.  O.  23,  ’15.  Colorado’s  “Republic  of 
Labor.” 

Literary  Digest.  53:543-4.  S.  2,  T6.  Arbitration  and  the  eight 
hour  day. 


1 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


^Literary  Digest.  53:1581-3.  D.  16,  ’16.  The  President’s  anti¬ 
strike  message. 

Literary  Digest.  62:9-11.  S.  13,  ’19.  The  Cummins  cure  for 
our  railroad  distress. 

Literary  Digest.  64:14-15.  Ja.  10,  ’20.  National  court  for  la¬ 
bor. 

Literary  Digest.  64:  17-18.  F.  7,  ’20.  Kansas  strike  cure. 

Living  Age.  273:451-61.  My.  T2.  Anti-strike  legislation  in 
Australasia.  Sidney  Low. 

t  Living  Age.  304:508-12.  F.  28,  ’20.  Arbitration  in  Australia. 
P.  Airey. 

t McClure’s  Magazine.  30:149-56.  D.  ’07.  Canadian  act  to  aid 
in  the  prevention  and  settlement  of  strikes  and  lockouts. 
C.  W.  Eliot. 

fMcClure’s  Magazine.  33:515-19.  S.  ’09.  Best  way  to  prevent 
industrial  warfare.  C.  W.  Eliot. 

Michigan  Law  Review.  13:185-204.  Ja.  ’15.  A  comparison  of 
some  methods  of  conciliation  and  arbitration  of  industrial 
disputes.  James  H.  Brewster. 

Mining  Congress  Journal.  3:  1-2.  Ja.  ’17.  Compulsory  investiga¬ 
tion  of  industrial  disputes. 

Nation.  40:377-8.  My.  7,  ’85.  Arbitration. 

Nation.  42:354.  Ap.  ’86.  President  Cleveland  on  arbitration. 

Nation.  44:112-3.  F.  10,  ’87.  Arbitration. 

Nation.  59:42.  Jl.  19,  ’94.  Limits  of  arbitration. 

Nation.  66:436-7.  Je.  9,  ’98.  Railroad  labor  arbitration. 

Nation.  70:471.  Je.  21,  ’00.  Arbitration,  compulsory  and  other. 

Nation.  73:488.  D.  26,  ’01.  Progress  of  labor  arbitration. 

Nation.  74:  165.  F.  27,  ’02.  A  new  scheme  to  avoid  labor 
troubles. 

Nation.  81 : 50-2.  Jl.  20,  ’05.  Crisis  of  industrial  arbitration. 

Nation.  95:500-1.  N.  28,  ’12.  The  railway  wage  award,  (ed.) 

Nation.  96:433-4.  My.  1,  ’13.  Another  labor  dispute  settled. 

Nation.  103:145.  Ag.  ’17,  T6.  Experiments  in  industrial  arbi¬ 
tration. 

Nation.  103:  184.  Ag.  24,  T6.  Railway  strikes. 

Nation.  103 : 479.  N.  23,  T6.  Classes  and  the  public. 

Nation.  103:550.  D.  14,  T6.  (editorial). 

Nation.  104:121-2.  F.  1,  ’17.  The  President  and  the  railways. 

Nation.  104:179-80.  F.  15,  ’17.  Railways  and  strikes. 

Nation.  110:755-7.  Je.  5,  ’20.  Henry  Allen’s  industrial  court. 
Frank  P.  Walsh. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


li 


National  Review.  30:360-70.  N.  ’97.  Working  of  compulsory 
arbitration  in  labor  disputes.  W.  Pember  Reeves. 

National  Review.  39:880-96.  Ag.  ’02.  Industrial  arbitration  act 
of  New  South  Wales.  B.  R.  Wise. 

National  Review.  54:306.  O.  ’09.  Canadian  experiment.  F.  A. 
‘•Acland. 

National  Review.  59:296-303.  Ap.  ’12.  Strikes  and  the  Australian 
remedy. 

National  Review.  59:1030-5.  Ag.  '12.  The  Australian  remedy. 
P.  Airey. 

New  Republic.  4:40-2.  Ag.  14,  ’15.  Arbitrated  strike.  F.  Hack- 
ett. 

New  Republic.  7:  12-13.  My.  6,  ’16.  To  prevent  industrial 
war.  William  Z.  Ripley. 

New  Republic.  8:222-3.  S.  30,  ’16.  Against  compulsory  ar¬ 
bitration.  G.  P.  West. 

New  Republic.  8:315-16.  O.  28,  T6.  The  ignorant  public. 

New  Republic.  9:  315-17.  Ja  20,  ’1 7.  Beyond  arbitration. 

New  Republic.  14:  314-15.  Ap.  13,  ’18.  National  labor  policy. 

New  Republic.  21:155-7.  Ja.  7,  ’20.  To  avert  or  postpone 
industrial  conflicts. 

New  Republic.  22:  179-82.  Ap.  7,  ’20.  The  president’s  in- 
dustrial  conference.  Felix  Frankfurter. 

Nineteenth  Century.  27:987-1000.  Je.  ’90.  Labor  disputes 
and  the  Chamber  of  Commerce.  S.  B.  Boulton. 

Nineteenth  Century.  40:  743-58.  N.  ’96.  Arbitration  and 
labor  disputes.  Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb. 

Nineteenth  Century.  52:  393-9.  S.  ’02.  Conditions  of  labor 
in  New  Zealand.  Tom  Mann. 

Nineteenth  Century.  67:37-47.  Ja.  ’10.  General  strike:  its 
consequences  and  a  remedy.  Bernard  C.  Malloy. 

North  American  Review.  142: 502-6.  My.  '86.  Strikes  and 
arbitration.  T.  V.  Powderly. 

North  American  Review.  143:317-28.  O.  ’86.  Arbitration. 
Richard  T.  Ely. 

North  American  Review.  155:370-5.  S.  ’92.  A  knight  of  la¬ 
bor’s  view.  T.  V.  Powderly. 

North  American  Review.  160:371-4.  Mr.  ’95.  How  to  pre¬ 
vent  strikes  and  lockouts.  Stockton  Bates. 

North  American  Review.  174:  175-81.  F.  '02.  Conference  for 
industrial  peace.  Oscar  S.  Straus. 


lir 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


North  American  Review.  175:91-8.  Jl.  ’02.  Strikes  and  the 
public  welfare.  John  Handiboe. 

North  American  Review.  175:597-606.  N.  ’02.  Compulsory 
arbitration:  a  half-way  house  to  socialism.  J.  A.  Hobson. 

North  American  Review.  191 : 644-51.  My.  ’10.  Right  to 
strike:  its  limitations.  J.  J.  Feely. 

Outlook.  56:  115-18.  My.  8,  ’87.  Arbitration  and  conciliation 
practically  applied.  H.  Oscar  Cole. 

Outlook.  63:877-9.  D.  9,  ’99.  Visit  to  the  compulsory  arbi¬ 
tration  court  of  New  Zealand.  H.  D.  Lloyd. 

Outlook.  68:946-8.  Ag.  24,  ’oi.  Self  enforced  arbitration. 

Outlook.  72:  10-12.  S.  6,  ’02.  Arbitrate  the  arbitrable  points. 
Abram  S.  Hewitt. 

Outlook.  72:235-6.  O.  4,  ’02.  Compulsory  arbitration  dis¬ 
cussed. 

Outlook.  72:914-15.  D.  20,  ’02.  Civic  federation  discussion. 
G.  C.  Sykes. 

Outlook.  74:  392-3.  Je.  13,  ’03.  Industrial  war  and  peace. 

Outlook.  74:915.  Ag.  15,  ’03.  Resisting  industrial  arbitra¬ 
tion. 

Outlook.  80:  671-6.  Jl.  15,  ’05.  An  experiment  in  industrial 
harmony.  Frank  Parsons. 

Outlook.  83:261-3.  Je.  2,  ’06.  Settlement  of  labor  disputes. 

Outlook.  83:271-3.  Je.  2,  ’06.  Compulsory  investigation  of 
labor  disputes.  Everett  P.  Wheeler. 

Outlook.  86:88-9.  My.  18,  ’07.  Industrial  war. 

Outlook.  86:  542-4.  Jl.  13,  ’07.  Industrial  mediaevalism. 

Outlook.  86:841-2.  Ag.  24,  ’07.  Are  strikes  worth  while? 

Outlook.  88:8-9.  Ja.  4,  ’08.  Conciliation  vs.  strikes. 

Outlook.  88:32-7.  Ja.  4,  '08.  Canadian  experiment  in  indus¬ 
trial  peace.  O.  D.  Skelton. 

Outlook.  88:  567.  Mr.  7,  ’08.  Conciliation  the  remedy. 

Outlook.  89:967.  Ag.  29,  ’08.  Canadian  Pacific  strike. 

Outlook.  90:828-32.  D.  12,  ’08.  How  strikes  are  settled  in 
New  Zealand.  O.  L.  Triggs. 

Outlook.  92:  779-8o.  Jl.  31,  ’09.  Press  steel  car  strike. 

♦Outlook.  94:517-18.  Mr.  5,  ’10.  War  on  the  people. 

Outlook.  94:  526-30.  Mr.  5,  ’10.  Land  without  strikes.  P. 
Kennaday. 

♦Outlook.  94:648-9.  Mr.  26,  ’io.  Measure  to  prevent 
strikes. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


liii 


fOutlook.  94:653-4.  Mr.  26,  To.  Way  to  peace. 

Outlook.  94:  774-6.  Ap  2,  ’10.  Why  labor  arbitration  has 
failed.  Henry  White. 

Outlook.  95:854-5.  Ag.  20,  To.  End  of  the  grand  trunk 
strike. 

Outlook.  96:  507-13.  O.  29,  To.  Mackenzie  King  and  Cana¬ 
dian  labor  troubles.  Elmer  E.  Ferris. 

Outlook.  97:247-9.  F.  4,  ’ll.  M.  Briand’s  plan. 

Outlook.  101:5-6.  My.  4,  ’12.  Mediation  in  labor  disputes. 
Outlook.  102:752-7.  D.  7,  ’12.  The  railway  arbitration,  a  re¬ 
view. 

Outlook.  103:463-4.  Mr.  1,  ’13.  A  strike  averted  (ed.) 
Outlook.  10^:637-8.  Jl.  26,  ’13.  The  railway  arbitration. 
Outlook.  113:582-4.  Jl.  12,  ’16.  A  tribal  war. 

Outlook.  114:56-8.  S.  13,  ’16.  The  strike  and  after. 

Outlook.  1 14:  121-3.  S.  20,  T6.  Can  strikes  be  prevented. 
Outlook.  114:256-65.  O.  4,  T6.  Strikes  and  the  Canadian  law. 
Outlook.  114:714-15.  N.  29,  T6.  Time  to  act. 

♦Outlook.  114:782-3.  D.  13,  ’16.  The  railway  situation  and 
the  President. 

Outlook.  115:603-4.  Ap.  4,  ’17.  Dangerous  tendencies  of  or¬ 
ganized  labor. 

Outlook.  117:306-7.  O.  24,  ’17.  Industrial  peace  by  miracle. 
Paul  W.  Brown. 

Outlook.  124:644-50.  Ap.  14,  ’20.  The  path  to  industrial  peace. 
Frederick  M.  Davenport. 

♦Outlook.  125:12.  My.  5,  ’20.  Labor  and  the  open  shop  (ed¬ 
itorial). 

Outlook.  125 :  58.  My.  12,  ’20.  The  courts  uphold  Governor 
Allen. 

Political  Science  Quarterly.  17:553-67.  D.  ’02.  Is  authoritative 
arbitration  inevitable?  John  B.  Clark. 

Political  Science  Quarterly.  18:112-40.  Mr.  ’03.  State  arbitra¬ 
tion  and  the  minimum  wage  in  Australasia.  Henry  W. 
Macrosty. 

Proceedings  of  the  Academy  of  Political  Science.  7:  1-188.  Ja, 
’i  7. 

p.  1-9.  American  experience  in  settlement  of  disputes.  William  L. 

Chambers. 

p.  10-18.  The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Act.  Victor  S.  Clark, 
tp.  19-30.  The  Australian  system  of  compulsory  arbitration.  Mathew 
B.  Hammond. 

*p.  36-44.  Objections  of  labor  to  compulsory  arbitration.  W.  S. 

Carter. 


liv 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


p.  44-80.  Constitutional  aspects  of  compulsory  arbitration.  Thomas 

I.  Parkinson. 

*p.  81-7.  Discussions  of  trade  unions  and  compulsory  arbitration, 
p.  94-107.  The  Erdman,  Newlands,  and  Adamson  Acts.  David  A. 

McCabe. 

p.  165-9.  Arbitration  of  recent  labor  disputes.  Oscar  S.  Straus. 

Public.  22:1108.  N.  29  ’19.  Compulsory  investigation. 

Public  Opinion.  17:832.  N.  29,  ’94.  Arbitration  congress  at 
Chicago. 

Public  Opinion.  17:863.  D.  6,  ’94.  Carroll  D.  Wright  on  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  1 :  86-91.  O.  ’86.  Legislation 
for  labor  arbitration.  H.  M.  Williams. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  1 : 487-97.  Jl.  ’87.  Action 
under  the  labor  arbitration  act.  Edward  Cummings. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  9:353-71.  Jb  ’95-  Industrial 
arbitration  in  the  United  States.  Edward  Cummings. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  10:407.  Jl.  ’96.  Industrial 
arbitration:  Its  methods  and  its  limitations.  S.  N.  D.  North. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  12:468-70.  Jl.  ’98.  Act  for 
arbitration  of  controversies  between  railways  and  their  em¬ 
ployees. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  15:403-6.  My.  ’01 .  Arbitra¬ 
tion  and  conciliation  in  France.  William  F.  Willoughby. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  17:614-42.  Ag.  ’03.  Report 
of  the  Victorian  industrial  commission.  A.  D.  Weber. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  24:561.  My.  ’10.  Recent 
changes  in  Australasian  laws  against  strikes.  V.  S.  Clark. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  24:660-712.  Ag.  ’io.  Com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration  in  New  Zealand.  James  E.  Le  Rossignol 
and  William  D.  Stewart. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  27:263-94.  F.  ’13.  The 
locomotive  engineers’  arbitration :  Its  antecedents  and  its 
outcome.  William  J.  Cunningham. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  28:360-72.  F.  ’14.  Media¬ 
tion  and  arbitration  of  railroad  wage  controversies;  A  year's 
developments.  Fred  W.  Powell. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  29:98-148.  N.  ’14.  Wages 
boards  in  Australia.  M.  B.  Hammond. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  29:326-61.  F.  '15.  Wage 
boards  in  Australia.  M.  B.  Hammond. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  29:563-630.  My.  ’15.  Wages 
boards  in  Australia.  M.  B.  Hammond. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


lv 


Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  31:404-46.  My  ’17.  Regula¬ 
tion  of  wages  in  New  Zealand.  M.  B.  Hammond. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  49 :  192-3.  Jl.  29,  To.  The  right  to  strike, 
its  limitations.  Joseph  J.  Feely. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  50:820-1.  Ap.  7,  Ti.  President  Delano 
on  arbitration  of  railway  labor  disputes. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  50:825-6.  Ap.  7,  Ti.  President  Delano 
on  the  railway  labor  situation.  F.  A.  Delano. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  50:934-5.  Ap.  21,  Ti.  Arbitration  of 
railway  labor  disputes.  P.  H.  Morrissey. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  50:979-80.  Ap.  28,  Ti.  Arbitration  of 
labor  disputes.  W.  S.  Carter. 

Railway  Age*  Gazette.  50:1096-7.  My.  12,  Ti.  Arbitration  of 
railway  labor  disputes. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  50:  1098-9.  My.  12,  Ti.  Another  letter 
from  Mr.  Delano  on  the  arbitration  of  labor  disputes. 
F.  A.  Delano. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  50:  1099-1100.  My  12,  Ti.  Railway 
labor  situation. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  50:1235-6.  Je.  2,  Ti.  Arbitration  of 
railway  labor  disputes.  F.  O.  Melcher. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  54:762-5.  Mr.  28,  ’13.  Arbitration  of 
the  firemen’s  wage  controversy. 

.Railway  Age  Gazette.  58:929-32.  Ap.  30,  ’15.  Public  regula¬ 
tion  of  wages  of  railway  employees.  Frank  H.  Dixon. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  58:962-5.  My.  7,  ’15.  Arbitration 
award  in  enginemen’s  wage  controversy. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  61:323.  Ag.  25,  T6.  A  suggestion  for 
arbitration. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  61:  1027.  D.  8,  ’16.  Involuntary  servi¬ 
tude  and  railroad  strikes. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  61:1037-9.  D.  8,  T6.  President  Wil¬ 
son  urges  law  to  prevent  strikes. 

Railway  Age.  67  :212-14.  Ag.  1,  T9.  Bi-partisan  labor  boards. 
W.  N.  Doak. 

Railway  Review.  56:636-7.  My.  8,  T5.  Mr.  Kruttschmitt 
sets  forth  his  views  on  industrial  mediation  and  concilia¬ 
tion. 

Railway  Review.  58:  138.  Ja.  22,  T6.  Strikes  and  the  Ca¬ 
nadian  law. 


lvi 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


♦Reconstruction.  2:24-6.  Ja.  ’20.  Mr.  Wilson  asks  for  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration.  Here  is  Australia’s  experience.  W. 
Francis  Ahearn. 

♦Reconstruction.  2:  150-2.  Ap.  ’20.  Compulsory  arbitration 
the  next  battle  prize, — why  it  failed  in  New  Zealand. 
Charles  Edward  Russell. 

Review  of  Reviews.  6:  168-74.  S.  ’9 2.  Strikes  and  their  reme¬ 
dies  :  A  report  from  the  Antipodes  on  conciliation  and 
arbitration. 

Review  of  Reviews.  10:  178-84.  Ag.  ’94.  Labor  troubles: 
Hints  of  new  remedies  from  the  Antipodes.  W.  P.  Reeves. 

Review  of  Reviews.  16:  735-6.  D.  ’97.  Compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion  in  labor  disputes:  How  it  works  in  New  Zealand. 

Review  of  Reviews.  23:328-33.  Mr.  ’01.  New  way  of  set¬ 
tling  labor  disputes.  John  R.  Commons. 

Review  of  Reviews.  29:622-3.  My.  ’04.  Labor  arbitration 
law  in  New  South  Wales. 

Review  of  Reviews.  37:  100-1.  Ja.  ’08.  Industrial  peace  legis¬ 
lation  in  Canada. 

Review  of  Reviews.  37:746-7.  Je.  ’08.  State  intervention  in 
labor  wars. 

Review  of  Reviews.  44:477-80.  O.  ’11.  Industrial  courts. 
Helen  L.  Sumner. 

Review  of  Reviews.  45:322-5.  Mr.  ’12.  A  preventive  of 
strikes — work  of  the  anthracite  conciliation  board.  Louis 
Graves. 

fReview  of  Reviews.  46:367-8.  S.  ’12.  Doubtful  efficacy  of 
the  Australian  remedy  for  strikes. 

Review  of  an  article  in  the  National  Review  (London),  by  P.  Airey. 

♦Review  of  Reviews.  48:  144-6.  Ag.  ’13.  A  threatened  rail¬ 
road  strike. 

Review  of  Reviews.  54:394-5-  O.  ’16.  Norway  adopts  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration. 

♦Review  of  Reviews.  55:  189-90.  F.  ’17.  The  Canadian  com¬ 
pulsory  investigation  act.  Ralph  M.  Easley. 

fReview  of  Reviews.  55:190-2.  F.  ’17.  Compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion  in  railroad  disputes.  Albert  Chandler. 

Review  of  Reviews.  61:292-4.  Mr.  ’20.  Governor  Allen’s 
solution.  Edna  O.  Whitcomb. 

Review  of  Reviews.  61:  294.  Mr.  ’20.  The  court  of  industrial 
relations. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


lvii 


Review  of  Reviews.  61:597-602.  Je.  ’20.  Liberty  and  law  in 
Kansas.  Henry  J.  Allen. 

Saturday  Evening  Post.  Je.  6,  ’12.  Compulsory  arbitration. 

^Saturday  Evening  Post.  192:6-7,  72,  75.  Mr.  6,  ’20.  A  substi¬ 
tute  for  strikes.  Gov.  Henry  J.  Allen. 

Saturday  Review.  74:556-7.  N.  12,  ’92.  Industrial  arbitra¬ 
tion. 

Saturday  Review.  95:  160-1.  F.  7,  ’03.  Labor  and  compul¬ 
sion. 

’•'Scribner’s  Magazine.  61:306-14.  Mr.  ’17.  Government  pre¬ 
vention  of  railroad  strikes.  Samuel  O.  Dunn. 

’•'Seamen’s  Journal.  33:  1-2.  Ap.  21,  ’20.  No  compulsory 
arbitration.  .Victor  A.  Olander. 

Sunset.  35:856.  N.  ’15.  Colorado  pacifists  experiment. 

Sunset.  35:  1071-82.  D.  ’15.  Australia,  the  social  melting  pot. 
Edward  F.  Adams. 

Survey.  22:844-86.  S.  25,  ’09.  One  way  to  settle  labor 
troubles.  Elizabeth  G.  Evans. 

Survey.  27:  1936-9.  Mr.  16,  ’12.  State  intervention  in  strikes. 
Paul  Kennaday. 

Survey.  28:  188-92.  My.  4,  ’12.  A  promising  foundation  for 
industrial  peace.  Allan  T.  Burns. 

Survey.  28:  399-403.  Je  1,  ’12.  Canadian  industrial  disputes 
act.  Ethelbert  Stewart. 

Survey.  28:  684-5.  Ag.  31,  ’12.  A  new  engine  for  concilia¬ 
tion.  Henry  Sterling. 

Survey.  29:  743-6.  Mr.  1,  ’13.  Staving  off  the  firemen’s  strike. 

Survey.  30:429.  Je.  28,  ’13.  A  bill  to  end  railroad  strikes. 

Survey.  32:  714-85-6.  Ap.  18,  ’14.  The  third  man  and  his  part 
in  industrial  disputes.  John  A.  Fitch. 

Survey.  32:455-8.  Ag.  1,  ’14.  Settling  labor  disputes  in  Aus¬ 
tralia.  Mary  Chamberlain. 

Survey.  34:280.  Je.  26  ’15.  Arbitration  of  Chicago’s  street 
railway  strike. 

Survey.  35:398.  Ja.  1,  ’16.  Mediation  and  arbitration.  John 
A.  Fitch. 

Survey.  36:  623-8.  S.  23,  ’16.  The  fundamental  principle  of 
arbitration.  John  A.  Fitch. 

Survey.  37:201-2.  N.  25,  T6.  Capital  and  labor  on  arbitra¬ 
tion. 


lviii 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Survey.  37:254.  D.  2,  ’16.  Compulsion  in  Australia  and  Can¬ 
ada. 

Survey.  37:256-8.  D.  2,  *16.  A  league  to  enforce  industrial 
peace. 

f Survey.  37:274.  D.  9,  ’16.  The  President  on  labor  disputes. 

Survey.  37:477-82.  Ja.  27,  T7.  Involuntary  servitude  and  the 
right  to  strike.  John  A.  Fitch. 

tSurvey.  37:496.  Ja.  27,  T7.  Oscar  Straus’s  plan  to  prevent 
strikes. 

Survey.  37:  737-8.  Mr.  31,  ’17.  The  supreme  court  on  strikes. 
John  A.  Fitch. 

♦Survey.  37:  746-54.  Mr.  31,  ’17.  Nine  years  of  the  Canadian 
act.  The  experience  with  compulsory  investigation  and 
its  application  to  the  United  States.  Ben  M.  Selekman. 

tSurvey.  37 :  754-9+764-5.  Mr.  31,  ’17.  The  Canadian  Disputes 
Act.  A  symposium.  John  R.  Commons,  Charles  W. 
Eliot,  J.  E.  Williams,  William  O.  Thompson,  James 
O’Connell,  James  C.  Watters,  H.  R.  Towne,  Harris  Wein- 
stock,  Elisha  Lee. 

tSurvey.  38:244-5.  Je.  9,  ’17.  Secretary  Wilson’s  plan  to 
prevent  strikes. 

Survey.  42:  192-5.  My  3,  ’19.  The  war  labor  board,  a  war¬ 
time  experiment  with  compulsory  arbitration.  John  A. 
Fitch. 

♦Survey.  42:399-401.  Je.  7,  ’19.  The  Australian  system  of 
dealing  with  labor  disputes.  George  Beebe. 

Survey.  43:339-41.  Ja.  3,  ’20.  Plan  of  the  President’s  indus¬ 
trial  conference  for  boards  of  inquiry  and  adjustment. 

Survey.  43:424-32.  Ja.  17  ’20.  Proposed  industrial  plan:  a 
symposium  of  criticism  of  the  President’s  conference  re¬ 
port. 

Survey.  43:819-34.  Mr.  27,  ’20.  Report  of  the  industrial  con¬ 
ference.  [The  report  reprinted  in  full] 

♦Survey.  44:  7-8+48.  Ap.  3,  ’20.  Industrial  peace  by  law — 
the  Kansas  way.  John  A.  Fitch. 

System.  37:  739-41,  861-3.  Ap.  ’20.  How  Cedar  Rapids  ban¬ 
ished  strikes.  Alfred  Pittman. 

Textile  World  Journal.  53:93-5,  166.  My.  25,  T8.  Arbitra¬ 
tion — its  uses  and  benefits.  Henry  P.  Molloy.- 

Unpopular  Review.  9:21-38.  Ja.  T8.  Industrial  peace  and 
world  peace. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


lix 


Westminster  Review.  159:  18-23.  Ja.  ’03.  How  shall  labor  and 
capital  be  reconciled?  Charles  F.  Adams. 

Westminster  Review.  159:24-8.  Ja.  ’03.  Country  without 
strikes.  Alice  Henry. 

Westminster  Review.  163:307-13.  Mr.  ’05.  Arbitration  and 
government  employees.  S.  W.  Belderson. 

World  Today.  3:2153-5.  D.  ’02.  Arbitration  of  labor  dis¬ 
putes.  W.  W.  Willoughby. 

World  Today.  13:1057-9.  O.  ’07.  Strike  in  New  Zealand. 
James  E.  Le  Rossignol. 

World’s  Work.  3:  1781-3.  F.  ’02.  Successful  prevention  of 
strikes.  Hugh  H.  Lusk. 

World’s  Work.  5;  2789-90.  N.  ’02.  Can  arbitration  in  labor 
troubles  be  effective? 

World’s  Work.  5:2856.  D.  ’02.  Means  to  effective  arbitra¬ 
tion.  Frederick  W.  Job. 

World’s  Work.  26:438-44.  Ag.  ’13.  How  Canada  prevents 
strikes.  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King. 

World’s  Work.  31:363-5.  Mr.  ’16.  Labor  and  capital  after 
the  war.  E.  T.  Good. 

World’s  Work.  34:  15-17.  My  ’17.  Way  to  end  railroad 
strikes. 

♦World’s  Work.  39:  531-2.  Ap.  ’20.  Striking  at  public  neces¬ 
sities. 

*  World’s  Work.  39:  547-8.  Ap.  ’20.  The  new  railroad  law. 
Ray  Morris. 

Yale  Review.  3:376-407.  F.  ’95.  Industrial  conciliation  and 
arbitration  in  Europe  and  Australasia.  E.  R.  L.  Gould. 

Yale  Review.  11:225-8.  N.  ’02.  Work  of  the  industrial  com¬ 
mission:  The  hazards  of  arbitration. 

Yale  Review.  19:32-54.  My.  ’10.  Victorian  wages  boards 
and  the  New  Zealand  conciliation  arbitration  act.  Paul 
Kennaday. 


Government  Publications 
United  States  Publications 

♦Address  of  the  President  [Wilson].  Ag.  29,  ’16.  Pamphlet, 
also  printed  as  House  Document  1340,  1st  session,  64th  Con¬ 
gress,  and  in  Congressional  Record,  Vol.  53,  Part  13, 
P.  13335-7  and  13361-3. 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 


lx 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


*Address  of  the  President  [Wilson].  D.  5,  ’16.  Pamphlet,  also 
in  Congressional  Record.  D.  5,  ’16. 

Annual  message  of  the  President  [Wilson].  D.  2,  1919. 

Pamphlet,  also  in  the  Congressional  Record. 

Annual  reports,  Commissioner  of  mediation  and  conciliation. 
Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor. 

Published  bi-monthly  from  1896  until  1912. 

♦Bulletin  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics.  No.  233  Jl.  T8. 
Operation  of  the  industrial  disputes  investigation  act  of  Can¬ 
ada.  Benjamin  M.  Squires. 

Congressional  Record.  Vol.  42.  Part  8.  p.  299-304  of  Appendix. 
60th  Congress,  1st  Session,  My.  26,  ’08.  Investigation  of  con¬ 
troversies  between  capital  and  labor  by  commissions  ap¬ 

pointed  by  the  President.  Speech  of  Hon.  William  H.  Ryan, 
giving  letters  from  various  labor  leaders. 

Congressional  Record.  Vol.  43.  Part  1.  p.  114-34.  60th  Con¬ 
gress,  2d  Session.  D.  10,  ’08.  Debate  on  H.  R.  15447.  “To 

provide  for  the  investigation  of  controversies  affecting  inter¬ 
state  commerce  and  for  other  purposes.” 

Congressional  Record.  Ja.  22,  ’17.  Compulsory  arbitration. 
William  H.  Coleman. 

*  Congressional  Record.  D.  ’19  and  Ja.  ’20.  Numerous 

speeches,  chiefly  in  the  Senate  during  December. 

Consular  Reports. 

65:110-14.  ’01.  Labor  legislation  in  New  Zealand.  Frank 

Dillingham. 

75:526.  ’04.  Arbitration  in  New  South  Wales.  Orlando  H. 
Baker. 

Hearings  before  the  House  Sub-Committee  on  Labor,  March 
16  to  April  13,  1904,  on  H.  R.  9491  to  create  a  national  ar¬ 
bitration  tribunal  and  to  define  the  duties  and  powers  of 
the  same.  i47p.  1904. 

Hearings  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  education  and  labor, 
April  7,  1904,  on  S.  3259  to  create  a  national  arbitration 
tribunal  and  to  define  the  duties  and  powers  of  the  same. 
40p.  1904. 

♦Hearing  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  interstate  commerce. 
August  31,  1916  (64th  Congress,  1st  Session),  on  proposed 

bills,  in  connection  with  legislation  relative  to  the  threatened 

strike  of  railway  employees.  I57p. 

Also  printed  as  Senate  Document  549. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


lxi 


Hearing  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  interstate  commerce 
January  2,  1917.  Government  investigation  of  railway  dis¬ 
putes.  294P. 

Hearing  before  the  House  Committee  on  interstate  and  foreign 
commerce  on  H.  R.  19730,  providing  for  compulsory  media¬ 
tion  in  railway  disputes,  January  17,  19,  and  23,  1917.  242 p. 

Hearing  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  interstate  commerce 
on  the  extension  of  time  for  relinquishment  by  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  railroads  to  corporate  ownership  and  control.  3  vols. 
1919- 

Hearing  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  interstate  commerce 
on  S.  2906.  1919.  146P. 

Hearing  before  the  House  Committee  on  interstate  and  foreign 
commerce,  July  15  to  October  4,  1919,  on  the  return  of  rail¬ 
roads  to  private  ownership  1919.  17  parts. 

House  Document  853,  62 d  Congress.  2d  Session,  Je.  7,  ’12. 

Mediation,  conciliation  and  arbitration. 

House  Report  8077,  59th  Congress,  2d  Session.  F.  25,  07.  In¬ 
vestigations  of  controversies  affecting  interstate  commerce. 

Includes  “Investigation  and  publicity  as  opposed  to  compulsory  arbi¬ 
tration,”  by  Charles  Francis  Adams. 

House  Report  621,  60th  Congress,  1st  Session.  F.  3,  ’08.  In¬ 
vestigation  of  controversies  affecting  interstate  commerce. 

Also  includes  “Investigation  and  publicity  as  opposed  to  compulsory 
arbitration,”  by  Charles  Francis  Adams. 

House  Report  853,  62d  Congress,  2d  Session.  Je.  7,  ’12.  Media¬ 
tion,  conciliation  and  arbitration. 

Monthly  review  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 

1 :  14-15.  Ag.  ’15.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  Denmark. 

1 :  51.  Ag.  ’15.  Annual  arbitration  reports.  (Australia) 

1 :  100-1.  O.  ’15.  New  Zealand  awards. 

1  162.  N.  ’15.  Agencies  of  mediation,  investigation,  and 
arbitration. 

1 :  81-3.  N.  ’15.  Industrial  arbitration  in  Norway. 

1 :  10-12.  D.  *15.  The  compulsory  industrial  disputes  investi¬ 
gation  act  of  Colorado. 

2:23-8.  Ja.  T6.  The  Canadian  industrial  disputes  investiga¬ 
tion  act. 

2:89-110.  F.  T6.  Industrial  peace  in  Australia  through 
minimum  wage  and  arbitration.  Henry  B.  Higgins. 

3 : 255-62.  Ag.  ’16.  Arbitration  and  conciliation  in  Austra¬ 
lasia.  Mary  T.  Rankin. 


lxii 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


3 :  353_9-  S.  T6.  Minimum  wage  legislation  in  Australasia. 
Paul  S.  Collier. 

3:360-1.  S.  T6.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  Norway. 

3  :  430_3-  G.  ’16.  Arbitration  of  railroad  labor  disputes. 

3 : 608-9.  N.  ’16.  Proposed  legislation  in  Sweden  for  the 
settlement  of  industrial  disputes. 

3:716-9.  D.  ’16.  Canadian  industrial  disputes  investigation 
act  in  operation. 

*4:  11-19.  Ja.  ’17.  Industrial  conciliation  and  anti-strike  legis¬ 
lation  relating  to  public  utilities  in  various  countries. 

4:19-25.  Ja.  ’17.  Conference  on  labor  disputes  and  public 
service  corporations. 

4:239-40.  F.  ’17.  Laws  of  various  countries  for  the  adjust¬ 
ment  of  disputes  between  railroads  and  their  employes. 

4:360-5.  Mr.  ’17.  Compulsory  arbitration  and  minimum 
wage  in  munitions  industries  in  France. 

4:697-701.  My.  ’17.  Canadian  industrial  disputes  investiga¬ 
tion  act  in  operation. 

4:912.  Je.  ’17.  Extension  of  application  of  Canadian  in¬ 
dustrial  disputes  investigation  act,  1907. 

+5 : 413-23.  S.  ’17.  The  industrial  disputes  investigation  act. 
Benjamin  M.  Squires. 

5  •  525-7.  S.  T7.  Compulsory  work  laws  and  laws  to  pre¬ 
vent  interference  with  employment. 

7:  181-4.  Jl.  T8.  Industrial  arbitration  act  of  New  South 
Wales. 

*7 : 457-6o.  Ag.  T8.  Conciliation  and  arbitration  in  Great 
Britain. 

7:  1438-9.  N.  ’18.  Provision  to  prevent  strikes  and  lockouts 
in  Minnesota  during  the  war. 

7:  1853-4.  D.  ’18.  Arbitration  in  shipbuilding  dispute  in 
Australia. 

8:588-90.  F.  T9.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  Great  Britain 
during  the  war. 

8:  1758-65.  Je  T9.  Industrial  peace  in  Australia  through 
minimum  wage  and  arbitration. 

♦9:277.  Jl.  T9.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  Norway. 

10 :  337-45.  F.  To.  Labor,  its  grievances,  protests,  and  de¬ 
mands. 

10 :  808-9.  Mr.  To.  Kansas  court  of  industrial  relations. 

♦10:810-11.  Mr.  To.  Colorado  industrial  commission. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


lxiii 


10:863-70.  Ap.  ’20.  Report  of  the  President’s  Industrial 
conference 

10:880-7.  Ap.  ’20.  Analysis  of  labor  provisions  of  the  new 
transportation  act. 

10:1062-4.  Ap.  ’20.  Provisions  for  dealing  with  labor  dis¬ 
putes  in  Great  Britain  during  the  war. 

10:  1126-8.  My.  ’20.  The  Kansas  court  of  industrial  rela¬ 
tions. 

10:  1290-2.  My.  ’20.  Conciliation  and  arbitration  in  New 
Zealand. 

(In  the  Monthly  Review  are  also  numerous  articles  on  strikes,  trade 
agreements  and  on  the  mediation  and  conciliation  work  of  the  Federal 
Government.) 

National  war  labor  board.  The  aims  and  purposes  of  the  Na¬ 
tional  war  labor  board.  I5p.  1918. 

New  Zealand  industrial  conciliation  and  arbitration  law.  De¬ 
partment  of  labor.  1900. 

Railway  strikes  and  lockouts.  A  study  of  arbitration  and  con¬ 
ciliation  laws  of  the  principal  countries  of  the  world,  pro¬ 
viding  machinery  for  the  peaceful  adjustment  of  disputes 
between  railroads  and  their  employees,  and  laws  of  certain 
countries  for  the  prevention  of  strikes.  U.  S.  Board  of 
Mediation  and  Conciliation.  367P.  1916.  House  Document 
2117,  64th  Congress  2d  Session.  N.  1,  T6. 

Report.  Commission  on  industrial  relations,  1916. 

Report  of  the  industrial  commission.  1900-1902. 

^Report  on  the  anthracite  coal  strike  (May-October,  1902). 
1903. 

Report  of  the  board  of  mediation  and  conciliation,  1913- 
1917-  30p.  1918. 

tReport  of  the  [second]  industrial  conference  called  by  the 
President  [Wilson]  Mar.  6,  1920. 

Reprinted  in  full  in  Survey  43:8x9-34.  Mr.  27,  20. 

Senate  Document  493,  64th  Congress,  1st  Session.  Railroad 
labor  arbitration :  Report  of  U.  S.  board  of  mediation 
and  conciliation  on  the  effects  of  arbitration  proceeding 
upon  rates  of  pay  and  working  conditions  of  railroad  em¬ 
ployes.  1916. 

Senate  Document.  650,  64th  Congress,  2d  session,  Transla¬ 
tion  of  the  Norwegian  law  relating  to  compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tions  in  labor  disputes.  1917. 


lxiv 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Senate  Report  1025,  64th  Congress,  2d  session.  Report  of 
the  committee  on  interstate  commerce  amending  the  act 
providing  mediation,  conciliation,  etc.  19 17. 

Senate  Report.  304,  66th  Congress,  1st  session.  Report  of 
the  committee  on  interstate  commerce.  November  10, 
1919-  I7P- 

*Text  of  Canadian  industrial  disputes  investigation  act  and 
summary  of  industrial  conciliation  and  anti-strike  legisla¬ 
tion  relating  to  public  utilities  of  various  countries.  Bu¬ 
reau  of  labor  statistics.  2ip.  1917. 

State  Publications 

California.  Arbitration  in  wage  and  other  disputes  between 
capital  and  labor.  Tenth  biennial  report  of  the  bureau  of 
labor  statistics.  1901-1902. 

Colorado.  Reports  of  the  industrial  commission  of  Colorado. 
1916  to  date. 

Georgia.  Message  of  Gov.  Joseph  M.  Brown.  June  25,  1913. 

^Kansas.  Message  of  Gov.  Henry  J.  Allen.  January  5,  1920. 

Kansas.  The  Kansas  court  of  industrial  relations.  Kansas 
state  printing  plant.  Topeka.  1920.  14P. 

Text  of  the  law. 

Maryland.  Compulsory  arbitration.  Fifth  annual  report  of 
the  bureau  of  labor  statistics.  1896.  p.  184-202. 

Massachusetts.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  New  South  Wales. 
Labor  Bulletin.  1902.  No.  21.  p.  26. 

Massachusetts.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  New  Zealand.  La¬ 
bor  Bulletin.  1901.  No.  2.  p.  128. 

Massachusetts.  Recent  cases  under  the  Canadian  industrial  dis¬ 
putes  investigation  act.  Labor  Bulletin.  13  :  62-5.  F.  ’08. 

Minnesota.  Views  of  Governor  Lind  on  compulsory  arbitration. 
Seventh  biennial  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor.  1900. 
P-  323-4. 

Nebraska.  New  Zealand  law  relating  to  arbitration  and  con¬ 
ciliation.  Seventh  biennial  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
and  Industrial  Statistics.  1900.  p.  459-96. 

New  York.  Compulsory  arbitration  in  New  Zealand.  Bulletin 
of  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics.  1899.  1 :  177. 

New  York.  Desirability  of  compulsory  arbitration  between  cor¬ 
porations  and  employees.  Governor's  message.  1891. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Ixv 


New  York.  New  Zealand  arbitration  law.  Bulletin  of  Bureau 
of  Labor  Statistics.  1903.  5  :  346. 

New  York.  Working  of  the  New  Zealand  compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion  law.  Board  of  mediation  and  arbitration,  fifteenth  an¬ 
nual  report.  1901.  p.  381. 

New  York.  Public  service  commission,  First  district.  Proposed 
plan  to  provide  for  fair  and  reasonable  wages  and  working 
conditions  and  to  prevent  interruption  of  the  service  on 
street  railroads,  etc.  1917. 

Virginia.  New  Zealand  law  relating  to  arbitration  and  concilia¬ 
tion.  Third  annual  report,  Bureau  of  Labor  and  Industrial 
Statistics.  1900.  p.  219-241. 


Decisions  of  the  Courts 
Wilson  vs.  New.  243  U.  S.  332. 

In  this  case  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  with  four  justices 
dissenting,  held  that  Congress  has  “authority  under  the  circumstances 
[threat  of  a  railway  strike]  _  to  compulsorily  arbitrate  the  dispute  be¬ 
tween  the  parties  by  establishing  as  to  the  subject  matter  of  that  dispute 
a  legislative  standard  of  wages  operative  and  binding  as  a  matter  of 
law  upon  the  parties, — a  power  none  the  less  efficaciously  exerted  because 
exercised  by  direct  legislative  act  instead  of  by  the  enactment  of  other 
and  appropriate  means.” 


Canadian  Publications 

*  Annual  reports  of  the  Registrar  of  boards  of  conciliation  and 
investigation  of  the  proceedings  under  the  industrial  disputes 
investigation  act  of  1907. 

Labor  Gazette,  [Monthly].  Department  of  Labor,  Ottawa. 

Contains  many  articles  on  the  operation  of  the  Canadian  Industrial 
Disputes  Investigation  Act. 


Industrial  Warfare 

The  literature  on  strikes,  lockouts,  boycotting,  blacklisting,  intimidation, 
sabotage,  violence,  deportation,  strike-breaking,  picketing,  and  the  other 
phases  of  industrial  warfare  i3  now  so  voluminous  that  only  a  limited 
bibliography  can  be  given  here.  Further  references  may  be  found  in 
the  Readers’  Guide,  Public  Affairs  Information  Service,  and  the  bib¬ 
liographies  mentioned  below. 


Bibliographies 

fBureau  of  Railway  Economics  Library.  (601 -13th  St.  N.  W., 
Washington,  D.  C.)  List  of  references  on  the  right  to 
strike.  Compiled  by  Mary  B.  Ladd.  Pamphlet.  i6p.  Re¬ 
print  from  Special  Libraries,  December,  1919. 


Ixvi 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Library  of  Congress.  Select  list  of  books  with  references  to 
periodicals  on  labor,  particularly  relating  to  strikes.  Com¬ 
piled  by  A.  P.  C.  Griffin.  1903. 

Review.  1 :  370+372.  S.  6,  ’19. 

Books  and  Pamphlets 

♦Adams,  Thomas  S.,  and  Sumner,  Helen  L.  Labor  problems. 
Macmillan.  1911. 

Chap.  VI.  Strikes  and  boycotts. 

♦Bliss,  W.  D.  P.  New  encyclopedia  of  social  reform.  Funk  & 
Wagnalls.  1908. 

p.  1167-72.  Strikes  and  lockouts, 
p.  127.  Boycotting, 
p.  119-20.  Blacklist. 

Bolen,  G.  L.  Getting  a  living.  Macmillan.  1903. 

Chap.  IX.  Strikes,  lockouts  and  boycotts. 

Chap.  X.  Questionable  policies  of  trade  unions. 

Brissenden,  Paul  F.  The  I.  W.  W.,  a  study  of  American  syn¬ 
dicalism.  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.  1919. 

Buchanan,  J.  R.  Story  of  the  labor  agitator.  Outlook  Co.  1903. 
Burns,  W.  J.  The  masked  war.  1910. 

Carlton,  Frank  T.  The  history  and  problems  of  organized  labor. 
D.  C.  Heath.  1911. 

Chap.  VII.  p.  157-89.  Coercive  methods. 

Cleveland,  Grover.  The  government  in  the  Chicago  strike  of 
1894.  Princeton  university  press.  1913. 

Cohen,  Julius  H.  Law  and  order  in  industry.  Macmillan. 
1916. 

Commons,  John  R.  et  al.  History  of  labor  in  the  United 
States.  2  vols.  Macmillan.  1918. 

Crowther,  Samuel.  Why  men  strike.  Doubleday.  1920. 
Gilman,  Nicholas  P.  Methods  of  industrial  peace.  Hough¬ 
ton,  Mifflin  Co.  1904. 

Chap.  VIII.  p  240-76.  Strikes  and  lockouts,  the  blacklist  and  the 
boycott. 

Groat,  George  G.  An  introduction  to  the  study  of  organized 
labor  in  America.  Macmillan.  1916. 

Chap.  X  and  XI.  p.  159-203.  The  strike. 

♦Harper’s  Encyclopaedia  of  United  States  History.  Harpers. 
1912. 

Vol.  3.  Articles  on  “Dynamite  Outrages.” 

Howell,  George.  Conflicts  of  capital  and  labor.  Macmillan. 
1890. 

Chap.  IX.  p.  346-92.  Strikes,  their  objects,  cost  and  results. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


lxvii 


Huebner,  Qrover  G.  Blacklisting.  Wisconsin  free  library- 
commission.  Legislative  reference  dept.,  Comparative  leg¬ 
islation  bulletin.  No.  io.  Madison.  1906. 

Huebner,  Grover  G.  Boycotting.  Wisconsin  free  library 
commission  Legislative  reference  dept.,  Comparative  legis¬ 
lation  bulletin.  No.  9.  Madison.  1906. 

Hungerford,  Edward.  The  railroad  problem.  McClurg.  1917. 
Hunter,  Robert.  Violence  and  the  labor  movement.  Mac¬ 
millan.  1914. 

Laidler,  Harry  W.  Boycotts  and  the  labor  struggle.  John 
Lane  Co.  1914. 

Lavasseur,  P.  E.  American  workman.  Johns  Hopkins 
Press.  1900. 

p.  232-75.  The  strike. 

League  for  industrial  rights  (formerly  the  American  anti¬ 
boycott  association).  Strikes  on  public  utilities  and  va¬ 
rious  other  pamphlets.  135  Broadway,  New  York  City. 

McLaughlin,  A.  C.,  and  Hart,  A.  B.  Cyclopedia  of  Amer¬ 
ican  government.  Appleton.  1914. 

Vol.  3.  p.  436-9.  Strikes. 

Marot,  Helen.  American  labor  unions.  Henry  Holt.  1914. 

p.  200-14.  Strikes  and  violence. 

*Mitchell,  John.  Organized  labor.  American  Book  and 
Bible  House.  1903. 

National  industrial  conference  board,  Research  report  no.  3. 
Strikes  in  American  industry  in  wartime  (April  6  to  Oct. 
6,  1917).  March  1918.  2op. 


Nicholson,  J.  Shield.  Strikes  and  social  problems.  Macmil¬ 
lan.  1896. 

Chap.  I.  p.  1-21.  Strikes  and  a  living  wage. 

^Trachtenberg,  Alexander.  The  American  labor  year  book. 
Rand  school  of  social  science.  New  York. 

Vol.  I.  19x6.  p.  47  et  seq. 

Vol.  II.  1917-18.  p.  70  et  seq 

Vol.  III.  1919-20.  p.  161  et  seq.;  333-5. 

Wright,  Carroll  D.  Battles  of  labor.  Geo.  W.  Jacobs  Co. 

1906. 

Periodicals 


American  Economic  Association,  Publications.  3rd  series. 
7;  176-217.  F.  ’06.  Violence  in  labor  disputes.  Thomas 
S.  Adams  and  others. 


lxviii 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


American  Federationist.  17:988-9.  N.  ’10.  Labor’s  right  not 
to  sell.  Samuel  Gompers. 

American  Magazine.  72:473-82.  Ag.  ’ll.  Cost  of  a  quarrel. 
A.  S.  Crapsey. 

♦American  Magazine.  89:9,  100,  105.  F.  ’20.  What  these 
strikes  cost  3^011  in  money.  Roger  W.  Babson. 

American  Statistical  Association,  Publications.  11:169-94. 
Je.  ’08.  Strike  statistics.  Ira  Cross. 

Arena.  23:  194-203.  F.  ’00.  Strikes,  trusts,  boycotts,  and  the 
blacklist.  F.  D.  Tandy. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  90 : 656-67.  O.  ’02.  Quarter  century  of 
strikes.  A.  P.  Winton. 

Cassier’s  Magazine.  23:727-35.  Ap.  ’03.  Echoes  from  the 
recent  Pennsylvania  coal  strike.  George  F.  Baer. 

Century.  81:632-3.  F.  ’it.  Lawlessness  in  support  of  a 
cause. 

Columbia  Law  Review.  17:  502-22.  Je  ’17.  Railway  strikes 
and  the  Constitution.  Arthur  A.  Ballantine. 

Columbia  LIniversity  Studies  in  History,  Economics,  and 
Public  Law.  10:1-118.  ’98.  Sympathetic  strikes  and  sym¬ 
pathetic  lockouts.  Fred.  S.  Hall. 

f Contemporary  Review.  116:496-503.  N.  ’19.  Labor  unrest 
and  the  need  for  a  national  ideal.  B.  S.  Rowntree. 

Current  History.  11:54-6.  O.  ’19.  The  police  strike  in  Bos¬ 
ton. 

Current  Opinion.  66:  199-200.  Mr.  ’19.  To  stop  all  strikes 
and  save  $3,000,000,000  annual  industrial  loss. 

Economic  Journal.  19:602-9.  D.  ’09.  Swedish  general  strike. 
T.  H.  Penson. 

Electric  Railway  Journal.  45:  1165-8.  Je.  19,  ’15.  Chicago’s 
two  day  strike. 

Everybody’s  Magazine.  33:  121-3.  Jl.  ’15.  Straight  stuff  about 
those  Danbury  hatters  and  about  boycotting. 

Independent.  55:  1493-7*  Je.  25,  ’03.  Sympathetic  strike.  J.  S. 
Stevens. 

Independent.  57:376-9.  Ag.  18,  ’04.  Labor  rebellion  in 
Colorado.  William  E.  Walling. 

Independent.  66:  1052-3.  M>'.  20,  ’09.  French  postal  strike. 

♦Independent.  88 :  139.  O.  23,  ’16.  Where  do  the  people  come 
in? 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


lxix 


Independent.  98:483-5.  Je.  28,  ’19.  Where  do  the  people  come 
in  when  capital  and  labor  fight  it  out?  Elsie  Gluck. 
Industrial  Management.  52:433-40.  Ja.  ’17.  Intolerable  burden 
and  cost  of  needless  and  senseless  labor  strikes.  F.  A.  Van- 
derlip  and  Thomas  A.  Edison. 

Industry.  1  :  5,  8-9.  Mr.  15,  ’19.  Government  by  capitulation. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies.  34:9-123.  1916.  The  con¬ 

trol  of  strikes  in  American  trade  unions.  George  M.  Janes. 
Law  and  Labor,  published  monthly  since  January  1919  by  the 
League  for  Industrial  Rights. 

A  monthly  periodical  on  the  law  of  the  labor  problems  from  the  em¬ 
ployers’  point  of  view. 

♦Literary  Digest.  42:295-6.  F.  18,  Ti.  What  strikes  have  cost 
the  miners. 

Literary  Digest.  46:626.  Mr.  22,  ’13.  Making  coal  strikes  pay. 
Literary  Digest.  47:747-8.  O.  25,  ’13.  Do  strikes  pay? 
Literary  Digest.  62:15-7.  Ag.  30,  T9.  High  cost  of  strikes. 
Literary  Digest.  62:7-8.  S.  27  ’19.  Policeman’s  right  to  strike. 
Literary  Digest.  63:14-5.  N.  29,  ’19.  Labor’s  right  to  strike. 
McClure’s  Magazine.  20:323-36.  Ja.  ’03.  Right  to  work.  R.  S. 
Baker. 

McClure’s  Magazine.  23 : 43-57.  My.  '04.  Reign  of  lawless¬ 
ness.  R.  S.  Baker. 

McClure’s  Magazine.  38 :  347-64.  Ag.  ’n.  The  Dynamiters,  a 
great  case  of  Detective  Burns.  Harvey  J.  O’Higgins. 

Nation.  88:479-80.  My.  13,  ’09.  French  state  employees. 
Nation.  109:790-2.  D.  20  ’19.  End  of  Boston’s  police  strike. 
A.  Warner. 

New  Republic.  21:224-7.  Ja.  21,  ’20.  Can  the  strike  be 
abandoned?  W.  Lippmann. 

North  American  Review.  174:757-68.  Je.  '02.  Strikes  in  the 
United  States.  Carroll  D.  Wright. 

North  American  Review.  181:603-15.  O.  ’05.  Public  and  the 
coal  conflict.  H.  E.  Rood. 

North  American  Review.  191:644-51.  My.  To.  The  right  to 
strike,  its  limitations.  Joseph  J.  Feelv. 

Oregon  Voter.  19:301-2.  N.  22,  ’19.  The  right  to  strike. 
Outlook.  71:534-5.  Je.  14,  ’02.  Strikes  in  vital  industries. 

♦Outlook.  78:969-72.  D.  17,  ’04.  Violence  in  labor  conflicts. 
Slason  Thompson. 

Outlook.  81 :  1050.  D.  30,  ’05.  Russian  strike  and  anti-strike 

measures. 


lxx 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Outlook.  86:542-4.  Jl.  13,  ’07.  Industrial  mediaevalism. 

Outlook.  92 :  869-70.  A g.  14,  ’09.  Swedish  strike. 

♦Outlook.  94:517-18.  Mr.  5,  ’10.  War  on  the  people. 

Outlook.  98:12-3.  My.  6,  ’ll.  Murder  is  murder.  Theodore 
Roosevelt. 

Outlook.  98:915-6.  Ag.  26,  ’11.  Sabotage. 

Outlook.  103:62-5.  Ja.  11,  T3.  Government  by  dynamite. 

Outlook.  107 :  67-73.  My.  9,  ’14.  The  strike  war  in  Colorado. 
W.  T.  Davis. 

fOutlook.  1 14:  147-8.  S.  20,  ’16.  Strikes  and  the  public.  Paul 
W.  Brown. 

Outlook.  121 :  136-8.  Ja.  22,  ’19.  An  industrial  war  on  the  pub¬ 
lic  (editorial). 

fOutlook.  123 : 223-9.  O.  29,  ’19.  The  labor  crisis  and  the 
people. 

Outlook.  123:536-7.  D.  24,  ’19.  Strikes  we  have  survived. 

Pearson’s  Magazine.  28:  121.  O.  ’12.  What  strikes  cost  work¬ 
ers.  A.  L.  Studer. 

Political  Science  Quarterly.  29:626-63.  D.  T4.  The  West  Vir¬ 
ginia  coal  strike.  Lawrence  R.  Lynch. 

Quarterly  Review.  223 : 485-506.  O.  ’14.  Strikes  from  the 
workmen’s  point  of  view. 

Railway  Age  Gazette.  61:  1084.  D.  15,  ’16.  The  right  of  public 
service  employes  to  strike. 

Review.  2:170-1.  F.  21,  ’20.  Limitation  of  the  right  to  strike. 

Review  of  Reviews.  39:534.  My.  ’09.  France  and  organized 
labor. 

Review  of  Reviews.  40:481-2.  O.  ’09.  Swedish  general  strike. 
A  danger  signal. 

Review  of  Reviews.  49:732-4.  Je.  T4.  Industrial  war  in 
Colorado. 

Review  of  Reviews.  60:341-3.  O.  ’19.  Boston’s  police  strike. 

Sunset.  37:39.  O.  T6.  The  right  to  strike. 

Survey.  32:304-5.  Je.  13,  ’14.  The  closed  shop  and  the  labor 
boycott.  H.  W.  Laidler. 

Survey.  33:241-58.  D.  5,  ’14.  Law  and  order:  The  issue  in 
Colorado.  John  A.  Fitch. 

Survey.  37:737-8.  Mr.  31,  T7.  The  supreme  court  on  strikes. 
John  A.  Fitch. 

Survey.  42:645-6.  Ag.  2,  ’19.  Epidemic  of  strikes  in  Chicago. 
Graham  Taylor. 

Survey.  42:881-2.  S.  20,  ’19.  Boston  police  strike. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


lxxi 


Survey.  43:58-64.  N.  8,  ’19.  Closed  towns,  intimidation  as  it 
is  practiced  in  the  Pittsburg  steel  district— the  contrast  in 
Ohio.  A.  W.  Shaw. 

Twentieth  Century  Magazine.  5  :  386.  F.  ’12.  Lawless  union¬ 
ism. 

World’s  Work.  10:6199-204.  My.  ’05.  Strike  breaking  as  a 
new  occupation.  Leroy  Scott. 

World’s  Work.  25:49-61.  N.  ’12.  The  battle  line  of  labor. 
Samuel  P.  Orth. 

World’s  Work.  25:197-205.  D.  ’12.  The  battle  line  of  labor. 
Samuel  P.  Orth. 

World’s  Work.  25:275-85.  Ja.  ’13.  The  battle  line  of  labor. 
Samuel  P.  Orth.  • 

World’s  Work.  25:431-7.  F.  ’13.  The  battle  line  of  labor. 
Samuel  P.  Orth. 

World’s  Work.  25:676-9.  Ap.  ’13.  The  power  of  the  railroad 
brotherhoods.  Gilson  Willets. 

Yale  Law  Journal.  5:13-26.  O.  ’94.  Legal  restraint  of  labor 
strikes.  William  P.  Aiken. 

Government  Publications 

Bulletin  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor.  9:  1097-1117.  No.  54.  S.  '04. 

Strikes  and  lockouts  in  the  United  States,  1881-1900.  G.  W.  W. 

Hanger. 

♦Congressional  Record.  59:1057-63  (of  daily  record).  Ja.  5, 
*20.  Letter  from  Samuel  Gompers  and  a  reply  by  Senator 
Charles  S.  Thomas. 

Monthly  Review  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 

Various  articles  on  strikes  and  lockouts  in  the  United  States  and  in 
foreign  countries. 

Report,  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations. 

Report  of  the  Industrial  Commission.  1900-2. 

Report  on  the  anthracite  coal  strike.  (May-Oct.  1902).  1903. 

Report  on  the  Chicago  strike  of  June-July  1894. 

♦Twenty-first  Annual  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  labor. 
Strikes  and  lockouts.  1906. 

The  3rd,  10th,  16th,  and  21st  Annual  reports  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Labor  were  devoted  to  strikes  and  lockouts.  While  the  latter  volume 
is  for  the  years  1901-1905,  it  contains  a  summary  of  the  entire  period 
under  investigation,  1881-1905.  It  also  contains  a  chapter  on  strikes 
and  lockouts  in  foreign  countries  and  one  on  the  laws  of  the  various 
states  relating  to  strikes,  blacklisting,  boycott,  etc. 

♦United  States.  Shipping  Board.  Statement  on  the  cost  of 
strikes,  December  6,  1919. 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  AND 
COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION 
OF  INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


INTRODUCTION 

President  McKinley  once  said  that  so  long  as  there  have 
been  Capital  and  Labor,  there  have  been  strikes.  In  recent 
years,  as  Capital  and  Labor  have  become  better  organized 
and  more  centralized  and  as  industry  has  developed  and  life 
become  more  complex,  strikes  have  frequently  been  greater 
in  extent,  involving  more  workmen  and  causing  greater  loss 
to  both  Capital  and  Labor  and  greater  inconvenience  and  suf¬ 
fering  to  the  general  public.  More  than  this,  the  official  sta¬ 
tistics  compiled  at  Washington  show  that  strikes  and  lock¬ 
outs  are  increasing.  The  Twenty  First  Annual  Report  of  the 
United  States  Commissioner  of  Labor  (p.  85)  says  that 
voluntary  arbitration  has  resulted  in  the  settlement  of  only 
1.6  per  cent  of  the  strikes  and  2.3  per  cent  of  the  lockouts 
between  1901  and  1905  inclusive.  When  boards  of  voluntary 
arbitration  have  offered  their  services  to  adjust  differences 
between  Capital  and  Labor,  they  have  frequently  received  no 
more  satisfaction  than  to  learn  that  one  party  or  the  other 
either  had  “nothing  to  arbitrate,”  or  considered  their  dif¬ 
ferences  “a  well  established  principle  of  human  welfare,  a 
principle  that  cannot  be  disputed  and  therefore  is  not  prop¬ 
erly  a  matter  for  arbitration.”  Sometimes  such  boards  have 
been  further  enlightened  by  being  informed  that  this  position 
did  not  mean  that  the  party  in  question  had  “rejected  the 
principle  of  arbitration.” 

The  year  and  a  half  that  have  elapsed  since  the  close  of 
the  world  war  have  been  a  period  of  great  industrial  unrest, 
world  wide  in  extent.  In  Europe,  America,  Australia,  Japan 
and  elsewhere,  there  have  been  industrial  wars  and  rumors 


2 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


of  war,  strikes  and  threats  of  strikes.  In  this  country  there 
has  been,  as  Senator  Thomas  said,  a  “perfect  carnival  of 
strikes,”  some  extensive  in  scope,  such  as  that  of  the  coal 
miners  and  the  steel  workers,  and  some  that  were  smaller 
but  have  caused  very  great  inconvenience  to  the  people  of 
the  community  concerned,  such  as  strikes  of  the  street  car 
men,  drug  clerks,  telephone  operators  and  elevator  operators. 
Some  strikes  have  effected  the  country  at  large  though  com¬ 
paratively  few  men  went  out,  as  was  the  case  of  the  railroad 
switchmen,  the  expressmen,  the  New  York  printers,  and  the 
longshoremen.  There  have  been  some  unusual  strikes,  such 
as  that  of  the  actors  in  New  York  City,  of  the  clerks  in  the 
Chicago  City  Hall,  of  the  Policemen  in  Boston  and  Cincinnati, 
and  of  the  City  Firemen  in  several  cities.  There  have  been 
sympathetic  strikes,  general  strikes  and  outlaw  strikes.  In 
England  there  was  a  serious  railroad  strike,  in  Spain  a 
medical  strike,  in  France  and  Italy  a  general  strike,  and  in 
Japan  several  strikes  in  true  western  style,  with  riots  and 
sabotage. 

So  great  are  the  losses  and  inconveniences  resulting  from 
industrial  warfare,  so  bitter  are  the  animosities  it  engenders, 
and  so  serious  the  element  of  uncertainty  it  injects  into  busi¬ 
ness,  that  scholars  and  statesmen  have  long  sought  a  more 
efficient  remedy  than  mediation,  conciliation  and  voluntary 
arbitration.  In  1894  New  Zealand  adopted  compulsory  in¬ 
dustrial  arbitration  as  a  result  of  the  strike  of  the  Seamen’s 
Union  which  disorganized  the  trade  of  the  islands.  This 
law  applies  only  to  registered  unions,  and  there  is  no  penalty 
for  failing  to  register,  but  among  the  registered  unions,  both 
during  a  hearing  by  a  Council  of  Conciliation  or  a  Court  of 
Arbitration,  and  after  an  award  of  agreement  has  been  made, 
strikes  and  lockouts  are  illegal  and  may  be  punished  by  a  fine. 
Even  a  gift  of  money  to  help  the  strikers  is  prohibited  and  is 
punishable  in  the  same  way.  The  system  was  soon  afterwards 
adopted  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia  and  in  several  of 
the  individual  states  of  that  Commonwealth.  At  first  it  worked 
with  a  considerable  measure  of  success  in  both  countries, 
though  it  is  true  that  the  laws  have  been  frequently  amended 
and  that  the  later  results  seem  much  less  favorable  than  those  of 
the  earlier  years. 

The  Dominion  of  Canada  under  the  leadership  of  Hon. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


3 


William  L.  Mackenzie  King,  adopted  the  “Industrial  Disputes 
Investigation  Act”  in  1907,  after  a  prolonged  coal  strike  had 
seriously  interfered  with  industry  and  public  comfort  and  had 
directed  attention  to  the  evils  of  industrial  warfare.  Although 
this  law  is  entitled  “An  Act  to  aid  in  the  Prevention  and  Settle¬ 
ment  of  Strikes  and  Lockouts  in  Mines  and  Industries  con¬ 
nected  with  Public  Utilities”,  and  although  many  of  its  advo¬ 
cates  are  always  emphatic  in  stating  that  it  is  not  compulsory 
arbitration,  the  act  provides  that  a  strike  or  lockout  in  the  in¬ 
dustries  within  its  scope  shall  be  illegal  until  the  dispute  has 
been  investigated  and  reported  upon  by  an  official  board  ap¬ 
pointed  for  the  purpose.  This  law,  therefore,  ought  to  be  called 
the  “Compulsory  Delay,  Investigation,  and  Publicity  Act,”  but 
this  system  is  usually  referred  to  “Compulsory  Investigation”  as 
distinguished  from  Compulsory  Arbitration.  Some  of  the  op¬ 
ponents  of  the  law  in  Canada  call  it  the  “Parade  Act,”  because 
of  its  publicity  features. 

The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act  applies 
only  to  mines  and  public  utilities,  including  railways  and  ship¬ 
ping,  but  other  industries  may  be  brought  within  its  scope  by 
agreement  of  both  parties  to  the  dispute.  Unlike  the  New 
Zealand  law,  the  awards  are  not  binding  upon  either  party,  nor 
is  a  strike  or  lockout  illegal  after  the  findings  of  the  board  have 
been  published,  the  law  leaving  it  to  public  opinion  to  enforce 
the  awards. 

In  1910  Denmark  adopted  a  limited  form  of  Compulsory 
Arbitration  similar  to  the  New  Zealand  system.  In  the  same 
year  a  similar  bill  was  introduced  in  Norway.  This  bill  was 
changed  to  provide  the  Canadian  form  of  Compulsory  Investi¬ 
gation  and  was  adopted  in  1915.  The  next  year,  however,  a  bill 
providing  for  a  limited  form  of  the  New  Zealand  system  was 
adopted  by  Norway,  but  it  also  contained  the  provision  that  it 
should  last  only  as  long  as  the  European  war.  The  Canadian 
plan  of  Compulsory  Investigation  was  adopted  by  the  State  of 
Colorado  in  1915.  The  Canadian  system  was  also  adopted  in 
New  Zealand  in  1913  to  apply  only  to  the  unions  which  were 
not  registered  and  therefore  did  not  come  under  the  Compul¬ 
sory  Arbitration  Law  of  1894.  In  1917  the  New  Zealand  sys¬ 
tem  was  adopted  in  France  by  a  decree  of  the  Minister  of  Muni¬ 
tions  but  it  applies  only  to  those  establishments  that  are  en¬ 
gaged  in  the  manufacture  of  “armaments,  munitions,  and  war 
materials.” 


4 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


In  January  1920  the  Legislature  of  Kansas  in  special  session 
adopted  the  recommendation  of  Governor  Allen  and  passed  the 
first  Compulsory  Industrial  Arbitration  law  in  America,  creating 
a  state  Court  of  Industrial  Relations  composed  of  three  judges 
appointed  by  the  governor.  The  law  does  not  cover  all  indus¬ 
trial  disputes,  but  applies  only  to  those  industries  declared  to  be 
‘‘affected  with  a  public  use.”  Such  industries  include  the  manu¬ 
facture  of  food  and  clothing,  the  mining  of  fuel,  the  transporta¬ 
tion  of  food,  clothing,  and  fuel,  and  all  public  utilities  and  com¬ 
mon  carriers.  The  Court  of  Industrial  Relations  is  given  power 
to  “settle  and  adjust  all  controversies,”  and  may  proceed  upon  its 
own  initiative,  or  upon  the  complaint  of  either  party,  or  of  ten 
taxpayers,  or  of  the  Attorney  General  of  the  state.  Strikes  and 
lockouts  are  prohibited  in  industries  within  the  scope  of  the  act. 
In  any  case  where  production  ceases  the  state  may  take  over 
the  industry  and  operate  it.  Any  person  violating  the  law  or 
any  order  of  the  court  may  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  one  thous¬ 
and  dollars,  or  imprisonment  in  jail  for  one  year,  or  both  fine 
and  imprisonment.  Any  officer  of  a  corporation,  employer  of 
labor,  or  officer  of  a  labor  union,  who  uses  his  position  to  get 
others  to  violate  the  law  or  any  order  of  the  court  may  be  fined 
five  thousand  dollars,  or  imprisoned  in  the  penitentiary  at  hard 
labor  for  two  years,  or  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

In  none  of  the  above  mentioned  countries  have  strikes  and 
lockouts  been  entirely  prevented  nor  is  it  claimed  by  the  advo¬ 
cates  of  either  system  that  more  can  be  done  than  to  reduce 
industrial  warfare  to  a  minimum.  While  there  is  no  “land 
without  strikes,”  many  persons  believe  that  labor  troubles 
have  been  greatly  reduced  under  each  of  these  systems.  In 
Canada  there  were  222  strikes  in  industries  within  the  scope 
of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act  during  the  first 
ten  years  of  the  law,  204  of  which  were  illegal.  The  official 
figures,  on  the  other  hand,  show  that  during  the  first  twelve 
years  of  the  law,  374  applications  were  filed,  287  boards 
granted,  and  only  24  strikes  “not  averted  or  settled.”  In 
New  Zealand  there  were  no  strikes  or  lockouts  during  the 
first  twelve  years  (1894-1905)  of  Compulsory  Industrial  Ar¬ 
bitration,  but  there  were  169  strikes  and  lockouts  during  the 
thirteen  years  that  followed.  While  strikes  have  occurred  in 
violation  of  all  of  these  laws,  there  have  been  but  few 
prosecutions  for  such  violation.  This  is  particularly  true  in 
Canada. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


5 


In  the  United  States  a  law  providing  for  voluntary  arbi¬ 
tration  was  passed  by  Congress  in  1888.  It  applied  to  any 
controversy  between  a  railroad  or  other  transportation  com¬ 
pany  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  and  any  class  of  its  em¬ 
ployees  which  might  “hinder,  impede,  obstruct,  interrupt,  or 
affect  such  transportation  of  property  or  passengers.”  The 
law  provided  that  either  party  might  propose  in  writing  to 
submit  the  differences  to  arbitration,  and  if  the  other  party 
should  accept  the  proposition,  each  side  should  select  one 
arbitrator  and  the  two  should  select  a  third.  These  three 
persons  made  up  the  Board  of  Arbitration.  There  was  also 
a  provision  that  each  of  the  arbitrators  selected  by  the  par¬ 
ties  should  be  impartial  and  disinterested,  but  no  provision 
was  made  for  selecting  the  third  arbitrator  if  the  two  failed 
to  agree  upon  one.  A  Board,  once  created  under  this  law, 
had  power  to  administer  oaths,  subpoena  witnesses,  require 
the  production  of  records,  etc.  but  no  provision  was  made 
for  enforcing  the  awards.  The  law  also  provided  that  in  any 
controversy,  when  the  parties  might  create  an  Arbitration 
Board,  the  President,  of  his  own  initiative,  might  select  two 
Commissioners,  who,  with  the  Commissioner  of  Labor, 
should  constitute  a  temporary  commission,  with  powers 
similiar  to  a  Board  of  Arbitration,  for  the  purpose  of  examin¬ 
ing  the  causes  of  the  controversy. 

No  Arbitration  Board  was  ever  created  under  the  Act 
of  1888,  and  only  one  Commission,  which  was  appointed  in 
July  1894,  a  month  after  the  beginning  of  the  strike  at  the 
Pullman  Car  shops.  This  Commission  did  not  settle  the 
strikes  that  led  to  its  creation,  but  it  made  a  recommending 
for  a  permanent  strike  commission,  with  more  drastic  pow¬ 
ers  of  investigation  and  recommendation.  The  sympathetic 
railroad  strike  growing  out  of  the  Pullman  strike  was  a  bitter 
and  violent  industrial  war  that  interfered  with  the  carrying 
of  the  mail  and  threatened  the  cities  with  starvation.  The 
final  result  was  the  passage  of  the  Erdman  Act,  approved  June 
ist  1898,  which  superceded  the  act  of  1888. 

The  Erdman  Act  applied  only  to  controversies  between 
interstate  carriers  and  those  of  their  employes  who  were 
“actually  engaged  in  train  operation  or  train  service.”  It 
provided  for  government  mediation  and  conciliation  if  either 
of  the  parties  should  request  it,  and  for  arbitration  if  both 
parties  requested  and  agreed  to  it  in  writing,  each  naming 


6 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


an  arbitrator,  and  these  two  selecting  the  third.  This  Board 
had  power  to  subpoena  witnesses,  administer  oaths,  require 
the  testimony  of  witnesses  and  production  of  books,  papers, 
contracts,  agreements  and  records.  Its  awards  were  to  be 
“valid  and  binding”  upon  both  parties,  but  no  employe  was 
to  be  “compelled  to  render  personal  service  without  his  con¬ 
sent.” 

.  No  very  serious  railroad  strike  occurred  on  an  interstate 
railroad  for  more  than  twenty  years  after  the  passage  of  this 
law  and  some  people  have  concluded  that  the  law  was  very 
successful.  There  was  only  one  attempt  to  utilize  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  Erdman  Act  during  the  first  eight  and  a  half 
years  of  its  existence,  and  this  one  attempt  resulted  in  a  com¬ 
plete  failure.  In  the  six  years  that  followed  the  act  was 
resorted  to  in  about  sixty  cases,  but  in  only  four  of  these 
were  the  arbitration  features  of  the  law  employed.  A 
threatened  strike  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engi¬ 
neers  of  the  eastern  railroads  in  1912  was  settled  by  arbitra¬ 
tion  outside  of  the  provisions  of  the  Erdman  Act,  and  the 
Board  of  Arbitration  that  settled  the  matter  recommended 
the  adoption  of  compulsory  arbitration  of  the  disputes  be¬ 
tween  railways  and  their  employes. 

On  July  15,  1913,  the  Newlands  Act  was  adopted.  This 
amends  the  Erdman  Act  which  provided  for  a  Board  of 
three,  one  representing  the  employers,  one  of  the  employees, 
and  a  third  chosen  by  these  two.  Under  the  Newlands  Act 
the  Board  may  consist  of  three  or  six  as  the  interested  par¬ 
ties  may  desire.  If  a  Board  of  six  is  decided  upon  each  of 
the  parties  to  the  controversy  selects  two  representatives 
and  these  four  select  the  remaining  two.  The  Newlands 
Act  also  provides  for  a  Board  of  Mediation  and  Conciliation, 
and  this  Board  selects  the  neutral  member  or  members  of  an 
Arbitration  Board  if  the  representatives  of  the  interested 
parties  fail  to  do  so  within  five  days  where  it  is  a  Board 
of  three  or  within  fifteen  days  where  it  is  to  be  a  Board  of 
six.  If  either  party  refuses  to  agree  to  arbitration,  then  the 
other  party  may  apply  to  the  Board  of  Mediation  and  Con¬ 
ciliation  and  in  cases  where  an  interruption  of  traffic  is  immi¬ 
nent,  this  Board  may  act  on  its  own  initiative,  but  in  either 
case,  it  only  acts  as  a  Board  of  mediation  and  conciliation. 
In  other  words,  there  are  no  compulsory  features  embodied 
in  the  Newlands  Act. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


7 


In  1916  after  a  strike  had  been  voted  by  the  employees  of 
the  American  railroads  who,  refusing  to  arbitrate  the  matter, 
had  made  a  demand  for  an  eight  hour  day  without  any  decrease 
in  pay  which  the  officials  of  the  roads  had  refused  to  grant, 
President  Wilson  in  an  address  to  Congress  recommended  the 
adoption  of  “A  provision  making  illegal  any  railroad  strike  or 
lockout,  prior  to  the  investigation  of  the  merits  of  the  case/’  or, 
in  other  words,  the  adoption  of  the  Canadian  system  of  Com- 
pulsory  Investigation  as  regards  disputes  between  Railroad  offi- 
cials  and  their  employees.  This  recommendation  the  President 
“very  earnestly  renewed”  in  his  annual  address  to  Congress  on 
December  5,  1916,  but  Congress  did  not  enact  such  legislation. 

Congress  did  yield  to  the  demands  of  the  railway  employees 
for  an  eight  hour  day,  and  passed  what  is  known  as  the  Adam¬ 
son  Act,  the  constitutionality  of  which  came  before  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  case  of  Wilson  vs.  New,  and  was  decided  on 
March  19,  1917.  (243  U.S  332).  By  vote  of  five  to  four  the 

court  held  that  Congress  had  “Authority  under  the  circum¬ 
stances  to  compulsorily  arbitrate  the  dispute  between  the  parties 
by  establishing  as  to  the  subject  matter  of  that  dispute  a  legisla¬ 
tive  standard  of  wages  operative  and  binding  as  a  matter  of 
law  upon  the  parties, — a  power  none  the  less  efficaciously  ex¬ 
erted  because  exercised  by  direct  legislative  act.” 

On  March  1,  1920  the  railroads  of  the  country  were  re¬ 
turned  to  their  owners  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Transportation  Act  of  1920,  (the  Esch-Cummins  law).  The 
original  Cummins  bill  as  passed  by  the  Senate  in  December, 
1919  contained  a  provision  for  the  Compulsory  Arbitration  of 
all  labor  disputes  between  the  railroads  and  their  employees, 
but  the  House  of  Representatives  refused  to  concur  in  this 
provision  and  it  was  eliminated  in  the  joint  conference.  The 
Transportation  Act  includes  a  plan  for  the  conciliation  and 
arbitration  of  labor  disputes.  It  provides  for  local  Adjustment 
Boards  and  a  national  Labor  Board  composed  of  nine  members 
appointed  by  the  President  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Sen¬ 
ate.  Three  members  of  this  Board  represent  the  railway  em¬ 
ployees  and  are  selected  by  the  President  from  a  list  of  at  least 
six  names  submitted  to  him  by  the  representatives  of  the  rail¬ 
ways  in  such  manner  as  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
may  prescribe.  Three  represent  the  railway  owners  and  are 
selected  in  a  similar  manner.  The  other  three  represent  the 
public  and  are  selected  by  the  President  without  previous  nom- 


8 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


ination.  The  Labor  Board  deals  primarily  with  appeals  from 
the  decisions  of  local  Adjustment  Boards,  but  it  also  has  powers 
of  original  initiative.  Strikes  are  not  made  illegal  pending  an  in¬ 
vestigation  by  the  Labor  Board  or  an  Adjustment  Board,  nor  is 
any  award  or  decision  of  either  made  obligatory  on  the  parties. 
The  Labor  Board,  however,  has  full  power  to  investigate  any 
and  every  dispute,  to  compel  the  attendance  and  testimony  of 
witnesses,  and  it  can  examine  the  books  and  records  of  the 
parties,  thus  assuring  full  publicity. 

The  report  of  the  (second)  Industrial  Conference  called  by 
the  President  (March  6th  1920)  gives  a  plan  designed  to  reduce 
to  a  minimum  the  interference  with  industry  caused  by  strikes 
and  labor  unrest.  It  declares  “Prevention  of  Disputes  is  worth 
more  than  Cure,”  and  recommends  “Employe  Representation” 
saying  “Employes  need  an  established  channel  of  expression  and 
an  opportunity  for  responsible  consultation  on  matters  which 
affect  them  in  their  relations  with  their  employers  and  their 
work.  There  must  be  diffused  among  them  a  better  knowledge 
of  the  industry  as  a  whole  and  of  their  own  relation  to  its  suc¬ 
cess.  Employe  Representation  will  not  only  enable  them  better  to 
advance  their  own  interests,  but  will  make  them  more  definitely 
conscious  of  their  own  contribution  and  their  own  responsibili¬ 
ties.”  The  report  also  suggests  a  plan  of  machinery  to  adjust 
disputes  in  general  industry  by  conference,  conciliation,  in¬ 
quiry  and  arbitration.  The  plan  discards  compulsory  arbitration 
and  the  prohibition  of  strikes  pending  an  investigation,  but  pro¬ 
poses  a  National  Industrial  Board,  Regional  Adjustment  Con¬ 
ferences,  and  Boards  of  Inquiry.  The  worst  penalty  suggested 
is  publicity,  but  the  report  does  recommend  that  Regional  Boards 
of  Inquiry  be  given  power  to  subpoena  witnesses,  to  examine 
them  under  oath,  and  to  require  the  production  of  books  and 
papers. 

The  last  forty  years  have  witnessed  fundamental  changes 
in  our  industrial  system.  During  the  earlier  part  of  this  period 
most  of  our  basic  industries  were  consolidated  into  giant  cor¬ 
porations.  During  the  latter  part  of  the  period  the  national  and 
local  labor  unions  have  merged  into  one  giant  federation.  The 
American  Federation  of  Labor  was  organized  in  1881  (though 
not  taking  its  present  name  until  five  years  later)  with  about  a 
quarter  of  a  million  members.  By  1900  it  had  doubled  its  mem¬ 
bership,  then  having  over  a  half  million  members.  Its  member¬ 
ship  was  tripled  in  the  next  decade,  giving  it  over  a  million  and 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


9 


a  half  in  1910.  Since  that  time  it  has  again  doubled  its  member¬ 
ship,  reporting  on  April  30,  1919  a  membership  of  over  three 
and  a  quarter  millions  with  forty-six  state  federations,  816  city 
central  bodies,  hi  national  and  international  unions,  and  33,8 52 
local  unions.  At  the  present  time  (May,  1920)  its  membership  is 
over  four  million. 

Today  both  Capital  and  Labor  are  highly  organized  for  indus¬ 
trial  warfare.  Both  organized  employers  and  employes  have 
treasuries  with  reserve  funds  for  war  emergencies  and  both  are 
fighting  with  propaganda.  Thirty  or  forty  years  ago  Capital 
looked  with  little  favor  upon  Compulsory  Arbitration,  but  sev¬ 
eral  of  the  prominent  labor  leaders  favored  its  adoption.  Now 
employers  are  looking  upon  Compulsory  Arbitration  more  favor¬ 
ably,  but  the  leaders  of  organized  labor  in  this  country  are  al¬ 
most  unanimous  in  their  opposition  both  to  Compulsory  Ar¬ 
bitration  and  to  Compulsory  Investigation.  They  hold  that 
either  plan  would  be  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  working 
classes,  that  either  plan  takes  away  from  labor  its  only  weapon 
and  leaves  it  unarmed  to  fight  organized  capital,  and  that  either 
plan  would  produce  a  condition  of  involuntary  servitude  pro¬ 
hibited  by  the  thirteenth  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitu¬ 
tion.  They  insist  that  the  working  men  have  a  long  established 
and  well  recognized  “right  to  strike.” 

The  existence  of  this  right  was  denied  by  representatives  of 
four  large  farmers  organizations  in  a  memorial  drawn  up  on 
February  11,  1920  and  addressed  to  Congress.  These  organ¬ 
izations  were  the  National  Grange,  the  American  Bureau  Fed¬ 
eration,  the  Cotton  States  Board,  and  the  Association  of  State 
Farmers’  Unions.  The  memorial  says,  in  part,  “Those  who  be¬ 
lieve  labor  has  an  inherent  right  to  organize  a  strike,  believe 
that  such  organizations  have  a  right  to  starve  the  people  of  the 
cities  to  death  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  destroy  the  property  of 
the  farmers  on  the  other.  No  such  right  has  ever  existed  and 
no  such  right  exists  now.  It  is  economically  unsound  and  the 
American  people  can  and  will  work  out  some  other  method  for 
the  settlement  of  such  controversies.  No  set  of  men  has  ever 
had  the  moral  or  legal  right  to  destroy  property  or  cause  suffer¬ 
ing  by  conspiring  together,  and  the  welfare  of  the  people  must 
ever  remain  superior  to  that  of  any  class  or  group  of  people.” 

A  middle  ground  on  this  point  is  taken  by  Hon.  Elihu  Root 
in  suggesting  a  policy  to  be  embodied  in  the  Republican  National 
platform,  according  to  the  World’s  Work  (39:531.)  He  is 


10 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


quoted  as  saying  “We  should  not  attempt  to  take  away  the  right 
to  strike.  It  is  labor’s  great  protection.  But  we  should  by  law 
limit  the  right  to  strike  at  the  point  where  it  comes  in  conflict 
with  the  communities’  higher  right  to  self  protection.  No  man 
and  no  set  of  men  can  justly  claim  the  right  to  undertake  the 
performance  of  a  service  upon  which  the  health  and  life  of 
others  depends,  and  then  to  abandon  the  service  at  will.  The 
line  between  such  a  performance  and  an  ordinary  strike  should 
be  drawn  by  law.” 

A  similar  statement  is  embodied  in  the  “Declaration  of  the 
Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce”  (Survey  43:749,  Mr.  13  ’20) 
from  which  we  read,  “The  Employes’  right  to  strike  and  the 
employers’  right  to  lockout  his  employes  are  both  secondary  to 
the  public’s  right  to  service.  In  essential  industries,  govern¬ 
ment  services,  and  public  utilities  prompt  settlement  of  disputes 
should  be  effected  by  the  efforts  of  both  parties.  The  public’s 
right  to  uninterrupted  service  during  the  period  of  settlement  is 
a  primary  consideration.” 

The  “right  to  strike”  is  denied,  and  compulsory  arbitration 
is  endorsed  by  many  of  our  prominent  scholars  and  statesmen. 
Among  this  number  are  Governor  Henry  J.  Allen  of  Kansas, 
Ex-Gov.  Joseph  W.  Brown  of  Georgia,  William  Allen  White, 
Senator  A.  B.  Cummins,  and  a  majority  of  the  Senators  in  the 
Sixty-sixth  Congress.  Compulsory  Investigation  has  been  en¬ 
dorsed  by  President  Wilson,  William  J.  Bryan,  Hon.  William  L. 
McKenzie  King,  of  Canada,  Hon.  G.  D.  Robertson,  the  Minister 
of  Labor  in  Canada,  and  many  others.  Judge  Curran  of  Kansas 
has  said  (Outlook  125:58)  “The  divine  right  to  strike  where  it 
affects  the  health  and  welfare  of  the  public  must  be  relegated  to 
the  realm  where  the  divine  right  of  kings  has  been  sent.” 

There  is  one  point  upon  which  almost  everybody  seems  to 
agree,  that  strikes  and  lockouts  are  a  bad  thing,  that  they  cause 
losses  to  both  antagonists  as  well  as  loss  and  suffering  to  inno¬ 
cent  people,  and  are  to  be  avoided  whenever  possible.  While 
very  few  will  defend  modern  industrial  warfare,  and  weak  is 
their  attempt,  yet  it  goes  on  and  will  go  on  for  generations 
after  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  one  United  States  Senator 
has  said  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  [December  18,  1919]  that  he 
would  give  his  “very  soul  and  go  down  damned  through  all 
eternity”  to  “fix  some  scheme  whereby  men  in  their  personal 
and  international  and  industrial  relations  would  submit  to 
reason  rather  than  passion.” 


Lamar  T.  Beman 


PART  I 


INDUSTRIAL  WARFARE 


( 


Much  of  the  material  in  Part  One  is  ex  parte,  the  utter¬ 
ances  of  interested  parties  in  the  industrial  conflict.  It  is 
our  desire  to  present  both  sides  as  fully  and  fairly  as  is 
possible  in  the  limited  space  at  our  command.  Any  debate 
or  discussion  of  Compulsory  Arbitration  or  Compulsory  In¬ 
vestigation  must  have  as  a  foundation  a  knowledge  of  In¬ 
dustrial  Warfare. 


STRIKES1 


Definition 

Strikes  are  concerted  cessations  of  work  by  wage-earners, 
designed  to  coerce  their  employers  into  compliance  with 
their  demands,  during  which  efforts  are  made  to  keep  other 
workmen  from  filling  the  places  temporarily  vacated.  The 
improvement  or  the*maintenance  of  the  existing  conditions 
of  employment  is  the  usual  question  at  issue  in  strikes, 
though  many  are  called  to  secure  recognition  of  the  unions, 
and  many  are  sympathetic  strikes.  The  public  always  asso¬ 
ciates  strikes  with  trade  unions,  but  about  a  third  of  the 
strikes  of  the  last  thirty  years  were  started  by  men  belong¬ 
ing  to  no  labor  organization.  Generally  labor  unions  later 
have  entered  the  field  to  direct  and  support  these  strikes  of 
the  unorganized. 

The  strikes  begun  by  labor  organizations  generally  find 
their  initiative  in  the  local  unions  directly  involved.  In  many 
unions  the  vote  of  more  than  a  majority  of  the  members  of 
the  locals  particularly  affected  is  required  to  authorize  any 
strike  even  if  not  local.  To  secure  financial  support  from  the 
general  union  treasury,  strikes  must  have  the  sanction,  also, 
of  the  officers  of  the  national  organization.  Only  in  the 
building  trades  do  the  local  union  officials  have  the  power  to 
call  strikes  on  their  own  initiative. 

Strikes  duly  authorized  are  generally  conducted  under  the 
direction  of  a  representative  of  the  national  union,  co-operat¬ 
ing  with  committees  of  the  local  directly  involved. 

Strike  Benefits 

To  the  men  on  strike,  weekly  payments  of  a  certain 
amount  are  made,  and  sometimes  milk,  clothing  and  grocer¬ 
ies  are  furnished  directly.  Workmen  not  belonging  to  the 
union,  if  they  join  in  the  strike,  receive  the  same  benefits  as 
do  the  union  members. 


1  Cyclopedia  of  American  Government,  vol.  3,  p.  436-8. 


14 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Unions  are  able  to  pay  these  strike  benefits  because  they 
collect  funds  for  these  emergencies  in  times  of  peace,  and 
during  strikes,  unions  frequently  levy  special  assessments 
for  their  support  upon  the  members  who  are  employed. 
Contributions  are  also  solicited  from  other  unions  and  from 
the  general  public.  When  unions  can  no  longer  financially 
support  a  strike,  it  is  almost  sure  to  collapse. 

Strike-Breakers 

In  most  strikes  employers  are  not  content  simply  to  close 
their  factories.  To  defeat  the  striking  workmen  in  their  de¬ 
mands,  it  is  necessary  to  show  that  the  factory  can  be 
operated  without  them.  This  necessitates  getting  new  work¬ 
men,  either  from  among  the  unemployed,  or  from  profes¬ 
sional  strike-breakers.  In  large  cities,  agencies  exist  which 
stand  ready  to  supply  strike-breakers,  and  the  armed  guards 
necessary  for  their  protection. 

To  the  strikers  it  is  all  important  that  their  places  shall 
not  be  filled  by  other  workmen.  To  turn  back  those  whom 
the  employer  has  secured,  the  strikers  institute  picketing 
(see).  Peaceful  picketing  is  frequently  effective  in  inducing 
workmen  who  have  been  secured  by  the  employer  through 
ignorance  of  the  existence  of  a  strike  to  turn  back,  sometimes 
by  paying  their  transportation  expenses. 

Violence  in  Strikes 

When  peaceful  methods  fail  to  prevent  the  employer’s  filling 
their  places,  strikers  resort  at  times  to  acts  of  violence.  Non¬ 
union  workmen  are  threatened  and  even  assaulted,  and  efforts 
are  made  to  destroy  the  employer’s  property.  In  the  United 
States  protection  to  employers  against  acts  of  violence  has  been 
far  less  efficient  than  in  Europe.  Because  of  the  political  power 
of  the  wage-earners,  local  officials  have  sometimes  been  un¬ 
willing  to  prosecute  strikers  who  violate  the  law.  Even  where 
the  state  militia  has  been  called  in,  violence  has  not  always  been 
checked.  Upon  only  a  few  occasions  have  federal  troops  fig¬ 
ured  in  strikes. 

Because  of  the  inadequacy  of  police  protection,  employers 
frequently  hire  armed  guards  to  conduct  workmen  to  and  from 
the  factory  to  their  lodging-houses,  and  to  protect  them  while 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


15 


at  work.  Sometimes  these  squads  have  been  given  commissions 
as  deputy  sheriffs,  with  power  to  make  arrests. 

Sympathetic  Strikes  and  Boycotts 

Workmen  in  the  same  industry  by  continuing  to  work  help  to 
defeat  the  men  who  are  out  on  strike.  Not  infrequently  the 
employer  transfers  a  part  of  his  orders  to  other  factories. 
Sympathetic  strikes  in  these  factories  are  then  called  by  the 
union.  In  a  sympathetic  strike,  strictly  speaking,  the  sympathis¬ 
ing  union  strikes  to  help  another  union,  but  without  a  direct 
grievance  or  demand  of  its  own.  The  sympathetic  strikes  of 
most  common  occurrence  take  place  in  the  building  trades.  The 
members  of  as  many  as  twenty  unions  are  frequently  employed 
upon  the  same  building;  only  through  sympathetic  strikes  can 
these  act  together  to  bring  work  to  a  standstill.  All  told,  less 
than  five  per  cent  of  all  strikes  are  sympathetic. 

Labor  union  men  in  other  industries  seldom  give  aid  to 
strikers  through  sympathetic  strikes.  The  chief  manner  in 
which  they  aid  strikes  is  through  their  refusal  to  purchase  from 
dealers  the  products  manufactured  by  the  employers  involved  in 
the  strike  and  by  their  contributions  through  their  unions.  Al¬ 
most  all  trade  union  boycotts  have  been  inaugurated  to  assist 
strikes,  but  they  are  of  real  assistance  only  in  those  industries 
where  a  considerable  portion  of  the  product  is  consumed  by 
union  men. 

How  Strikes  are  Ended 

Most  strikes  end  within  a  comparatively  short  time,  many 
lasting  but  a  single  day.  Usually  some  sort  of  an  adjustment 
is  reached  between  the  strikers  and  their  employer,  sometimes 
through  reference  of  the  disputed  questions  to  a  neutral  board 
of  arbitration.  More  frequently  the  adjustment  is  secured 
through  direct  negotiations  between  the  union  and  the  employer. 
Quite  often  the  employer  refuses  to  recognize  any  one  in  the 
negotiations  other  than  his  own  employes.  If  the  union,  how¬ 
ever,  is  sufficiently  strong,  it  insists  that  the  employer  shall  make 
a  trade  agreement  with  it,  to  govern  the  conditions  of  employ¬ 
ment  which  are  to  prevail  in  the  future.  Observance  of  such 
trade  agreements,  since  they  are  unenforceable  at  law,  depends 
upon  the  strength  of  the  organization  on  both  sides. 


16  COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 

If  the  employer  wins  a  complete  victory,  he  refuses  to  recog¬ 
nize  the  strikers  as  a  body,  but  usually  re-employs  most  of 
them.  The  union  leaders  are  likely  not  to  get  back  their  old 
positions,  and  may  be  prevented  from  getting  work  elsewhere. 

Effect  of  Strikes 

Of  the  strikes  undertaken  in  the  last  thirty  years,  by  trade 
unions,  one-half  have  been  won  by  laborers,  and  one-third  by 
employers,  the  rest  were  compromised.  A  majority  of  the 
strikes  not  called  by  labor  organizations,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  been  won  by  the  employers. 

Strikers  have  always  been  more  successful  in  times  of 
prosperity  than  in  those  of  depression.  While  demand  is  keen, 
employers  can  ill  afford  to  have  their  factories  closed,  and  at 
such  times  there  are  few  unemployed  to  take  the  places  of 
strikers.  Slack  times,  on  the  other  hand,  make  it  difficult  for 
strikers  to  win,  for  factories  may  be  closed  without  much  in¬ 
jury  to  the  employers,  and  other  workmen  may  easily  be  had. 

A  satisfactory  net  balance  of  gains  and  losses  sustained 
through  strikes  has  never  been  struck.  John  Mitchell  has 
computed  that  the  average  time  lost  through  strikes  does  not 
amount  to  one  day  per  j^ear  for  all  workmen.  The  net  losses 
directly  traceable  to  strikes  are  equal  to  three  cents  per  year 
for  each  inhabitant  of  the  county.  That  strikes  make  em¬ 
ployers  more  ready  to  grant  the  demands  of  the  laboring  men 
seems  certain.  For  every  advance  in  wages  secured  through 
strikes  more  than  a  dozen  are  won  without  them,  in  many  cases 
out  of  fear  of  strikes. 

History  of  Strikes 

Not  until  the  interests  of  the  masters  had  become  distinctly 
different  from  those  of  their  workmen,  could  strikes  play  any 
real  role  in  industry.  In  most  industries  this  stage  was  not 
reached  until  the  nineteenth  century  was  well  advanced.  The 
first  epidemic  of  strikes  throughout  the  country  occurred  in 
1827-29.  Prior  to  1881  about  1500  strikes  are  known  to  have 
taken  place.  Official  annual  statistics  since  1881  show  that  the 
number  of  strikes  has  been  increasing,  but  at  a  less  rapid  rate 
than  has  the  population. 

Statistics  show,  also,  that  the  importance  of  wage  demands 
as  a  cause  of  strikes  has  been  slowly  declining.  Within  the 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


17 


last  decade  the  question  of  the  recognition  of  the  union  and 
of  union  rules  has  been  responsible  for  as  many  strikes  as 
have  disputes  over  wages. 

Strike  Legislation 

During  the  first  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  workmen 
who  went  out  upon  strikes  were  in  some  cases  convicted  of 
conspiracy  to  raise  their  wages,  which  was  an  offense  in  com¬ 
mon  law.  When  juries  in  the  thirties  refused  to  convict,  this 
form  of  prosecution  for  striking  ceased.  Not  until  after  the 
Civil  War,  however,  were  statutes  enacted  expressly  legalizing 
strikes.  Only  a  few  states  ever  adopted  such  laws ;  and  most 
of  them  applied  only  to  strikes  directly  involving  questions  of 
wages  or  hours  of  labor. 

During  the  sixties  most  industrial  states  enacted  laws  pro¬ 
hibiting  intimidation  in  labor  controversies.  In  the  eighties 
some  of  them  made  it  criminal  for  men  to  participate  in  com¬ 
binations  with  the  purpose  primarily  to  injure  employers  or  non¬ 
union  workmen.  At  the  same  time  few  states  declared  boy¬ 
cotting  to  be  a  criminal  offense.  More  recently  Alabama  and 
Colorado  enacted  laws  making  picketing  illegal. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  number  of  states  have  enacted  laws 
declaring  peaceful  picketing  to  be  lawful.  Maryland,  California 
and  Oklahoma  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  provide  that  acts 
done  by  labor  combinations  shall  not  be  deemed  criminal  un¬ 
less  they  are  unlawful  when  undertaken  by  individuals. 

Statute  law  has  had,  however,  but  a  slight  importance  in 
determining  the  legality  of  the  activities  of  strikers.  Such  re¬ 
strictions  as  it  has  placed  upon  their  conduct  have  usually  been 
nothing  more  than  restatements  of  the  common  law.  The  few 
laws  enacted  to  remove  common  law  restrictions  have  been  so 
construed  by  the  courts  as  to  render  them  almost  meaning¬ 
less. 

Court  Decisions 

Court  decisions  upon  the  legality  of  the  activities  of  strikers 
have  often  been  contradictory.  As  to  combinations  to  strike, 
the  view  now  accepted  in  perhaps  the  majority  of  jurisdictions 
is  that  their  legality  depends  upon  the  objects  they  aim  to  ac¬ 
complish,  and  upon  the  means  they  employ  to  gain  these  ob¬ 
jects,  It  is  an  illegal  object  primarily  to  conduct  strikes  to  in- 


i8 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


jure  employers  or  non-union  workmen.  Illegal  means  are  em¬ 
ployed  in  furthering  a  strike  when  resort  is  had  to  “intimida¬ 
tion”  or  “coercion.” 

On  passing  upon  the  issue  of  fact,  whether  the  aim  of 
strikers  has  been  primarily  to  advance  their  own  interests,  or 
to  do  injury  to  others,  many  courts  have  failed  to  discover  the 
former  when  questions  of  wages  or  hours  of  labor  were  not 
directly  involved.  The  bulk  of  authority  is  in  favor  of  the 
view  that  strikes  to  gain  a  closed  shop  are  unlawful.  Similarly 
all  forms  of  sympathetic  strikes  have  been  held  illegal  in  most 
of  the  cases  which  have  come  up.  Some  decisions,  on  the 
other  hand,  hold  that  strikes  are  never  illegal. 

As  to  what  constitutes  “intimidation”  and  “coercion,”  also, 
much  uncertainty  exists.  All  cases  agree  that  these  terms  cover 
all  actions  which  place  the  average  person  in  fear  of  physical 
violence.  Other  decisions  go  much  beyond  this,  and  assert  that 
employers  or  non-union  workmen  are  “intimidated”  whenever 
they  are  compelled  to  do  something  they  did  not  intend  to  do. 
The  courts  defining  “intimidation”  in  this  manner  usually  hold 
that  no  picketing  during  strikes  is  ever  “peaceful.”  The  more 
generally  accepted  view  is  that  picketing  is  lawful  if  not  con¬ 
ducted  in  an  unreasonable  manner,  or  by  an  unnecessary  large 
number  of  men. 

The  courts  cannot  directly  prevent  strikes  for  illegal  pur¬ 
poses  from  being  carried  on.  Under  common  law  principles, 
and  by  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution,  per¬ 
sons  may  not  be  compelled  to  labor  against  their  will,  except  in 
punishment  for  crime.  They  may  leave  work  for  any  reason 
they  see  fit,  even  in  violation  of  their  contracts  of  employment, 
unless  they  are  in  military  or  sea  service.  In  some  cases  courts 
have  prohibited  officers  of  labor  unions  from  advising  or  call¬ 
ing  illegal  strikes,  and  from  making  benefit  payments  in  aid  of 
them.  The  more  progressive  view  is  that  such  prohibitions 
amount  to  an  indirect  method  of  compelling  workingmen  to 
labor  against  their  will. 

The  most  effective  manner  in  which  the  courts  interfere  in 
strikes  is  through  the  allowance  of  injunctions  enjoining  the 
strikers  from  committing  acts  of  violence  or  intimidation.  Of¬ 
ten  these  prohibitions  are  phrased  very  broadly,  such  as  “coer¬ 
cing  the  said  complainants  to  do  any  act  they  have  a  legal 
right  to  do  or  not  to  do,”  and  “from  in  any  manner  interfer- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


19 


ing  with  the  business  of  said  complainants.”  Persons  knowing 
of  the  issuance  of  such  injunctions  are  bound  to  respect  them, 
although  they  are  not  specifically  named  in  them,  or  personally 
served  with  them.  Violators  of  injunctions  are  subject  to 
punishment  for  contempt  of  court  without  the  jury  trial. 

The  practical  effect  of  the  allowance  of  injunctions  in  strikes 
is  often  to  discourage  the  rank  and  file  of  the  striking  work¬ 
men.  The  average  wage-earner  does  not  understand  how  he 
may  conduct  himself  during  a  strike  without  violating  the  in¬ 
junction  which  has  been  issued.  The  allowance  of  injunc¬ 
tions  against  strikers,  again,  usually  loses  them  the  support 
of  public  opinion  since  it  seems  to  brand  them  as  lawbreakers. 
The  legality  of  boycotts  is  treated  elsewhere. 

WAR  ON  THE  PEOPLE1 

Not  employer  or  employee,  but  the  patient,  long-endur¬ 
ing  public — foolishly  patient  and  weakly  enduring  public — 
is  the  real  sufferer  in  such  riots  as  those  which  last  week 
disgraced  the  city  named  in  honor  of  brotherly  love.  Street 
cars  burned,  innocent  bystanders  shot,  men  and  women 
clubbed,  fusillades  of  missiles  from  windows  with  answering 
volleys  of  pistol-shots — all  these  things  are  the  physical  out¬ 
cropping  of  industrial  medievalism.  The  street  car  corpor¬ 
ations  have  rights,  the  striking  employees  have  rights — under 
the  present  system  of  not  dealing  with  labor  disputes  both 
parties  have  too  many  rights.  But  above  these  legal  rights 
of  stopping  work  and  of  refusing  to  treat  with  unions  stands 
the  higher  right  of  the  people  of  Philadelphia  to  peace,  safe¬ 
ty,  and  order.  We  do  not  care  for  the  present  purpose 
whether  this  labor  war  was  provoked  or  unprovoked,  whether 
the  companies  or  the  men  are  most  to  blame ;  ultimately  the 
fault  lies  with  the  community  at  large,  because  it  has  pro¬ 
vided  no  reasonable  way  of  dealing  with  such  a  situation, 
despite  the  fact  that  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  under  the 
existing  law  conditions  of  lawlessness  and  violence  may  arise 
at  any  moment. 

It  is  true  that  Philadelphia  is  no  worse  in  this  matter 
than  many  other  cities,  although  political  vote-buying  and 


1  Outlook.  94:517-8.  March  5,  1910. 


20 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


partisan  bargaining  with  unions  and  corporations  have  there 
induced  a  peculiarly  corrupt  condition.  On  the  other  hand, 
all  cities  which  have  failed  to  note  that  some  countries  have 
taken  steps  to  make  such  strikes  difficult  or  impossible  are 
to  blame  for  their  civic  backwardness.  In  another  place  in 
this  number  of  The  Outlook  an  interesting  account  is  given 
by  Mr.  Paul  Kennaday  of  New  Zealand’s  radical  law  for 
compulsory  arbitration,  which,  if  it  has  not  literally  abolished 
strikes,  has  at  least  in  large  measure  stopped  senseless  labor 
warfare.  Repeated^  The  Outlook  has  described  Canada’s 
Board  of  Conciliation,  under  which  it  is  a  punishable  offense 
against  the  law  to  declare  either  a  strike  or  lockout  without 
prior  investigation  by  the  Board.  A  few  weeks  ago  Mr. 
Walter  G.  Merritt  in  The  Outlook  pointed  out  that  strikes 
on  public  utilities  in  their  effect  on  the  public  were  disas¬ 
trous  and  dangerous,  and  suggested  that  the  Inter-state 
Commerce  Commission  and  the  Public  Service  Comissions 
of  the  States  receive  power  to  do  as  part  of  an  ordered  sys- 
ten  what  was  done  as  an  informal  expedient  and  to  avert 
public  disaster  by  Mr.  Roosevelt’s  Anthracite  Commission. 
How  or  by  whom  the  work  is  to  be  done  is  an  open  question. 
The  trouble  is  that  we — that  is,  municipalities,  legislatures, 
and  Congress — sit  supinely  by  and  do  nothing. 

Every  reasoning  man  knows  what  will  follow  in  any  large 
American  city  if  suddenly  street  car  motormen  and  conduct¬ 
ors  go  on  strike  and  the  companies  send  out  part  of  their 
cars  manned  by  strike-breakers  or  even  by  old  employees 
who  refuse  to  join  their  fellows.  Crowds  gather,  a  rabble 
collects,  made  up  of  men  and  boys,  some  strikers — more, 
probably,  of  the  rowdy  and  reckless  hoodlums  found  in  the 
worst  districts.  From  hooting  and  rough  horse-play  the  ad¬ 
vance  to  stone-throwing  and  brutal  beating  is  quick.  Then 
come  police  clubbing  and  shooting,  and  quickly  the  city  is 
in  a  state  of  semi-anarchy,  and  savagery  is  seen  to  be  as 
surely  the  result  of  mob  excitement  as  it  was  in  the  days  of 
the  French  Terror.  It  is  a  public  duty  to  put  down  rioting; 
but  it  wrould  be  wise  to  forestall  it  by  making  the  exciting 
cause  impossible.  The  lawT  should  forbid  strikes  of  public 
utility  employees  in  a  body  and  without  notice,  because  such 
strikes  are  an  incentive  to  crime  and  an  outrage  against  pub¬ 
lic  safety  and  comfort.  But  if  it  does  this,  it  must,  as  a 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


21 


matter  of  plain  justice,  provide  a  fair  and  reasonable  way- 
in  which  the  claims  of  the  employees  acting  together  may 
be  heard  and  the  right  or  wrong  determined.  Conciliation 
and  compromise  must  supersede  brickbats  and  pistol-shots — 
and  this  not  only  for  the  benefit  of  workingmen  and  business 
men,  but  in  order  that  such  civic  chaos  as  that  in  Philadel¬ 
phia  may  become  impossible  under  the  sway  of  industrial 
democracy. 


VIOLENCE  IN  LABOR  CONFLICTS1 

“Can  strikes  be  conducted  without  violence?  Can  they 
succeed  when  not  accompanied  by  lawlessness?”  These  are 
two  questions  recently  asked  of  himself  by  John  Mitchell, 
President  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America.  To 
both  of  them  he  answers  positively,  “Yes!  If  I  believed 
otherwise,  I  should  abandon  the  trade-union  movement  forth¬ 
with.” 

Unfortunately,  stern  and  inexorable  facts  which  I  have 
gathered  from  every  section  of  the  Union  prove  that  if 
strikes  can  be  conducted  without  violence,  without  assaults, 
without  lawlessness,  without  riots  and  murder,  they  are  not, 
and,  with  rare  and  insignificant  exception,  they  never  have 
been. 

So  continuous  is  the  violence  attendant  on  strikes  that 
the  reports  fail  to  create  any  widespread  popular  abhorrence 
and  reprobation. 

Labor  conflicts  are  war.  But  only  when  war  is  waged 
by  barbarians  does  it  involve  the  women  and  children,  the 
homes,  the  property,  and  lives  of  non-combatants.  Indus¬ 
trial  wars  make  no  distinction  as  to  sex,  innocence,  or  help 
lessness.  They  divide  all  involved  into  unionists  and  so 
called  “scabs”;  the  one  denying  to  the  other  “life,  liberty 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,”  and  the  other  not  infrequently 
turning  and  taking  his  assailant’s  life  in  defense  of  his  own. 

No  one  can  read  and  ponder  the  record  of  the  outrages, 
assaults,  and  deaths  due  to  labor  disturbances  in  the  United 
States  in  the  two  years  and  a  half  to  June  30th  of  this  year, 
as  I  have  done,  without  amazement  and  horror  over  the 


1  By  Slason  Thompson.  Outlook.  78:969-72.  Dec.  17,  1904. 


22 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


crimes  and  unlawful  acts  accompanying  the  almost  inces¬ 
sant  strikes  that  have  marked  that  period. 

Possibly  Mr.  Mitchell  sincerely  believes  that  “the  great 
majority  of  strikes  are  inaugurated  and  fought  without  one 
single  act  of  violence,”  as  he  says,  but  the  facts  presented 
in  the  following  table  of  killed,  injured,  and  arrested,  as  far 
as  I  have  been  able  to  gather  them,  argue  that  Mr.  Mitchell 
is  singularly  blind  to  what  has  been  going  on  about  him  in 
the  great  struggle  in  which  he  has  played  such  a  conspicu¬ 
ous  part: 

Killed,  Injured  and  Arrested  in  Strikes  in  the  United  States 
Betiveen  January  i,  1902  and  June  30,  1904, 


State  Killed  Injured  Arrested 

Arizona  .  5  18  12 

California  .  6  34  31 

Colorado1  .  42  112  1345 

Connecticut  .  4  45  65 

Idaho  .  12 

Illinois  .  35  477  1353 

Indiana  .  14  39 

Iowa  .  3  5  22 

Kentucky  .  3  5 

Louisiana  .  1  38  79 

Maryland  .  9  10 

Massachusetts  .  3  19 

Michigan  .  3  4  7 

Minnesota  .  9  1 

Mississippi  .  1 

Missouri  .  8  40  69 

Nebraska  .  2  5  9 

Nevada  .  3  4  1 

New  Jersey  .  3  76  125 

New  York  .  4  123  1010 

Ohio  .  3  20  23 

Oregon  .  4  18 

Pennsylvania  .  35  486  678 

Tennessee  .  4  7  88 

Texas  .  1  15  62 

Utah  .  41  22  3 

Virginia  .  1  24  25 

Washington  .  6  11 

West  Virginia  .  13  19  192 

Wisconsin  .  1  1  10 


*8o  1651  5533 

Since  June  30th  last,  to  which  date  this  table  brings 
down  the  record,  we  in  Chicago  have  had  at  the  stock-yards 
which  has  been  proclaimed  all  over  the  country  as  a  “peace¬ 
able  strike,”  involving  26,000  workers.  There  have  been  five 
deaths,  213  serious  assaults,  innumerable  riots  and  arrests, 


1  In  addition  to  the  arrests  in  Colorado,  there  were  573  persons  de¬ 
ported,  the  first  case  of  deportation  being  that  of  32  Japanese  driven  out 
by  the  striking  miners  of  Fremont  County  on  February,  1902. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


2  3 


and  untold  suffering  and  misery  due  to  this  one  strike  alone, 
and  Chicago  has  had  other  strikes  during  the  same  period, 
with  their  attendant  murders,  assaults  and  arrests  swelling  the 
record  of  violence. 

In  the  two  days  fighting  at  San  Juan  and  El  Caney,  the 
American  losses  were  230  killed,  1,283  wounded,  and  81 
missing.  If  the  full  facts  could  be  known,  the  fatally  wound¬ 
ed  in  the  two  and  a  half  years’  labor  war  represented  in  the 
above  summary  would  exceed  the  death  list  at  San  Juan, 
even  as  its  incomplete  list  of  injured  does  that  in  the  battle 
which  settled  the  Spanish-American  War. 

The  killed  reported  ip  this  labor  war  were  divided  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 

Killed 


Non-union  men  .  116 

Union  strikers  .  51 

Officers  . .  13 


Total  . .  180 


The  union  men  were  almost  invariably  killed  by  non- 
unionists  in  self-defense,  or  in  riots  between  them  and  offi¬ 
cers  of  the  law. 

The  non-union  men  almost  invariably  came  to  their  death 
through  slugging,  shooting,  dynamite,  ambuscades,  and  all 
manner  of  assaults  in  which  unionists  or  union  sympathizers 
were  the  aggressors. 

The  officers  died  in  the  performance  of  their  duty  in  en¬ 
deavoring  to  preserve  the  peace  in  conflict  with  strikers. 

The  wounded  reported  in  this  labor  war  were  divided  as 
follows : 

Injured 


Non-union  men  . • . 1,366 

Union  strikers  .  151 

Officers  .  134 


Total  . 1,651 


The  explanation  as  to  how  the  three  classes  came  to  be 
killed  applies  to  the  injured.  But  it  should  be  remembered 
that  the  list  of  injured  is  far  less  complete  than  that  of  the 
killed,  because  all  news  agencies  are  more  particular  in  re¬ 
porting  strike  fatalities,  and  I  have  ignored  numberless  as¬ 
saults,  beatings  and  stonings,  where  the  serious  nature  of  the 
injury  was  not  reported. 


24 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


The  arrests  reported  in  this  lawless  war  were  divided  as 
follows: 

Arrests 


Non-union  men  .  374 

Union  strikers  . 5,159 

Total  . 5.533 


This  brief  table  conveys  its  own  analysis,  although  it 
should  be  added  that  had  the  arrests  in  connection  with 
labor  conflicts  been  publicly  reported  in  other  cities  with 
anything  like  the  fullness  they  are  in  Chicago  newspapers, 
the  exposure  of  the  appalling  prevalence  of  violence  attend¬ 
ing  strikes  would  have  been  even  more  startling.  This  leads 
to  the  explanation  that  in  gathering  the  above  facts,  I  had 
to  rely  on  published  accounts.  Experienced  and  trustworthy 
newspaper  men  were  employed  in  sixteen  widely  separated 
news  centers  of  the  country  to  examine  the  files  of  the  lead¬ 
ing  newspapers  of  their  respective  sections.  Where  they 
returned  “several”  wounded  or  arrests,  it  has  been  entered 
for  only  two;  and  where  the  reports  read  “many”  the  entry 
has  been  made  three. 

The  inquiry  was  instituted  to  secure  the  concrete  facts, 
if  possible,  and  some  reliable  data  as  to  the  mortality  through 
the  unceasing  war  which  labor  unions  have  been  waging  in 
the  United  States  during  recent  years.  The  National  Bureau 
of  Labor  has  told  us  that  strikes  and  lockouts  from  1881 
to  1900,  inclusive,  have  cost  employees  $306,683,223,  and  em¬ 
ployers  $142,659,104.  The  Labor  Associations  report  how 
many  of  their  strikes  are  successful,  are  compromised,  or 
fail;  the  numbers  engaged,  losses,  and  gains.  It  is  estimated 
that  the  labor  troubles  of  1902-03  reduced  the  purchasing 
ability  of  the  American  people  $1,000,000,000.  Records  are 
kept  of  the  number  of  murders,  suicides,  and  lynchings  an¬ 
nually.  But  hitherto  no  well-organized  attempt  has  been 
made  to  gather  into  comprehensive  shape  the  appalling  rec¬ 
ord  of  violence  and  lawlessness  partially  disclosed  in  the 
foregoing  tables. 

During  the  period  covered  by  my  inquiry,  there  were  no 
serious  labor  disturbances  in  many  of  the  States.  The  con¬ 
dition  in  various  agricultural  states  was  well  summarized  in 
the  report  of  my  Minnesota  correspondent,  as  follows: 

In  this  section  strikes  are  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  What 
few  labor  disagreements  arise  are  settled  by  arbitration.  This  is  an 
agricultural  country,  and  the  only  strikes  of  any  importance  generally  re- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


25 


suit  from  railroad  or  street-car,  flour-mill,  or  iron  mine  troubles.  There 
have  been  no  railroad  or  street-car  strikes  during  this  period,  and  the 
two  or  three  little  disputes  in  the  mines  brought  no  violence.  The  mill 
strikes  last  fall  were  reasonably  orderly,  only  four  persons  being  mal¬ 
treated. 

I  could  not  find  a  single  strike  productive  of  violence  in  the  Dakotas. 
Of  course  these  states  are  even  less  industrial  and  more  agricultural  than 
Minnesota. 

My  correspondent  from  Oregon  and  Washington  wrote: 

The  results  of  my  exhaustive  inquiries  appear  meagre  because  the 
above  period  was  one  of  prosperity  for  our  Northwest,  work  was  easily 
found,  and  there  were  no  racial  complications.  Manufacturing  is  com¬ 
paratively  new  and  unimportant  here,  class  distinctions  are  practically 
unknown,  and  the  workers,  as  a  rule,  know  their  employers  personally. 
Under  such  circumstances  labor  troubles  are  bound  to  be  rather  smaller 
and  less  bitter  than  those  of  the  East. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  anything 
like  full  statistics  of  the  violence  attending  strikes  is  indi¬ 
cated  in  the  following  extract  from  the  report  of  my  San 
Francisco  correspondent,  who  attempted  to  cover  California 
and  Nevada: 

I  regret  to  say  that  my  report  by  no  means  is  as  complete  as  I  hoped 
to  make  it  at  the  outset,  as  I  found  that  nothing  was  published  with  ref¬ 
erence  to  a  large  number  of  assaults  due  directly  to  the  many  strikes  which 
have  occurred  here  and  elsewhere  in  this  State  during  the  period  re¬ 
ferred  to.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the  country  districts  and  the  mining 
troubles;  the  reason  being,  apparently,  that  the  correspondents  feared  to 
dwell  upon  these  occurrences  lest  they  should  hurt  the  reputation  of 
their  town,  or  for  personal  reasons.  I  was  also  astonished  to  find  that 
in  many  instances,  even  in  San  Francisco,  the  papers  failed  to  follow 
up  the  troubles  between  employers  and  employed,  and,  unless  reported  to 
the  police,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  assaults. 

That  the  cold  figures  in  the  above  tables  do  not  begin 
to  tell  the  whole  harrowing  tale  of  violence  and  outrage 
attending  strikes  during  the  period  mentioned  may  be  judged 
from  the  fact  that  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  alone,  be¬ 
tween  May  1st  and  November  3rd,  1902,  in  connection  with 
the  “Peaceable  strike”  with  which  Mr.  John  Mitchell  was 
more  or  less  identified,  there  were: 

Thirty  occupied  dwellings  dynamited. 

Forty  trains  obstructed  or  wrecked. 

Four  dams  and  bridges  dynamited. 

Scores  of  houses  burned,  stoned,  shot  into,  or  otherwise  attacked. 

Unnumbered  riots  and  assaults  with  clubs,  stones,  and  other  weapons. 

Cattle  poisoned,  doctors  forbidden  to  attend  the  sick,  ministers  boy¬ 
cotted  for  ministering  to  the  dying. 

The  story  of  the  reign  of  terror  in  the  Pennsylvania  an¬ 
thracite  coal  region  during  the  last  great  strike  has  never 
been  and  can  never  be  written.  From  beginning  to  end  it 
was  attended  by  every  conceivable  description  and  degree 
of  human  fiendishness.  Malicious  and  criminal  mischief  held 


26 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


carnival  in  many  districts.  Outbreaks  of  minor  deviltry  did 
not  spare  the  mother  bearing  her  infant  in  her  arms,  or 
innocent  children  on  their  way  to  school.  Clergymen  were 
notified  not  to  bury  dead  non-unionists,  and  union  men  re¬ 
fused  to  worship  at  the  same  altar  with  the  industrious 
“scab”  who  preferred  to  work  rather  than  see  his  family 
starve. 

“Violence”  seems  a  very  moderate  word  by  which  to  de¬ 
scribe  deeds  like  these,  which  might  more  adequately  be 
termed  savagery. 

Nor  must  it  be  inferred  that  the  industrial  war  as  waged 
in  Pennsylvania  or  Colorado  has  any  monopoly  of  the  bar¬ 
barity  that  breaks  the  peace  of  the  commonwealth,  defies 
the  law,  and  sets  man  against  man  through  every  member 
Of  his  family.  In  every  section  of  the  country  like  condi¬ 
tions  and  passions  have  produced  like  results.  We  have  seen 
funerals  stoned  in  Chicago,  and  graves  and  crematories  dese¬ 
crated  in  San  Francisco  by  striking  unionists. 

It  may  be  that  violence  is  not  necessary  to  the  success 
of  any  strike,  but  the  testimony  of  incontrovertible  facts 
proves  that  violence  and  lawlessness  in  some  form  or  other 
is  the  almost  inseparable  concomitant  of  all  strikes  involving 
large  bodies  of  men.  We  hear  some  leaders  pleading  pub¬ 
licly  for  peace,  but  they  and  their  followers  know  that  a 
strike  means  a  breaking  off  of  peaceable  relations  and  an 
appeal  to  force,  which  at  every  stage  employs  the  terms, 
tactics  and  weapons  of  wrar  in  contempt  of  the  law  and  in 
defiance  of  the  sovereign  authority  of  the  State. 

A  strike  involving  large  bodies  of  rugged  men,  where  the 
employer  exercises  his  legal  right  to  fill  the  places  of  the 
strikers,  unattended  by  verbal  and  physical  violence,  includ¬ 
ing  assaults,  boycotts,  ostracism,  vile  epithets,  hanging  in 
effigy,  threats,  intimidation,  stoning,  slugging,  shooting,  de¬ 
struction  of  property,  dynamiting,  arson,  assassination,  mur¬ 
der,  or  some  of  these  symptoms  of  peace-defying  passions, 
is  a  rare  species  of  strike,  almost  as  unknown  as  it  is  in¬ 
nocuous. 

To  ask  men  to  unite  in  self-sacrifice  for  principle,  in¬ 
volving,  as  most  strikes  necessarily  must,  deprivation  and 
distress  to  themselves  and  those  dependant  on  them,  and 
expect  them  to  see  their  places  filled  without  the  resentment 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


2  7 


that  would  kill  the  thing  it  hates,  is  to  imagine  men  eman¬ 
cipated  from  the  passion  that  sent  Cain  forth  a  fugutive  on 
the  face  of  the  earth.  A  strike  without  violence  of  some 
sort  is  a  barren  ideality  that  exists  only  in  the  minds  of  self- 
deceived  sentimentalists,  professional  agitators,  and  unsophis¬ 
ticated  economists. 

Since  the  above  was  written,  I  have  gathered  the  follow¬ 
ing  additional  statistics  from  the  reports  in  the  Chicago 
newspapers  covering  the  three  months  to  September  30th, 
1904,  which  show  that  there  has  been  no  abatement  in  the 
violence  attending  labor  strikes: 

Killed,  Injured,  and  Arrested  in  Strikes  in  the  United  States  During 
Three  Months,  *July  1  to  September  30,  1904. 


Killed 

Injured 

Arrested 

Non-union  men  .... 

.  9 

260 

41 

Union  strikers  . 

22 

540 

Officers  . 

33 

Total  . 

.  18 

3i5 

581 

Making  a  total  for  the 

two  years  and 

nine  months  of: 

Killed 

Injured 

Arrested 

Non-union  men  .... 

1,626 

415 

Union  strikers  . 

.  56 

i73 

5,699 

Officers  . 

167 

Total  . 

i,q66 

6,114 

If  the  returns  for  the  last  three  months  included  in  this 
table  were  anything  like  as  comprehensive  as  those  for  the 
preceding  two  years  and  a  half,  the  showing  would  be  a 
still  more  startling  contradiction  of  the  theory  that  strikes 
can  be  conducted  without  violence  or  that  they  are  so  con¬ 
ducted. 


DYNAMITE  OUTRAGE1 

One  of  the  most  sensational  events  in  the  history  of  in¬ 
dustrial  labor  in  the  United  States  began  at  Indianapolis, 
Ind.,  on  April  22nd,  1911,  when  John  J.  McNamara,  secre¬ 
tary-treasurer  of  the  International  Association  of  Bridge  and 
Structural  Iron  Workers,  was  arrested  on  a  charge  of  mur¬ 
der  in  connection  with  the  explosion  that  wrecked  the  build¬ 
ing  of  The  Times  newspaper  at  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  on  Oc- 

1  Harper’s  Encyclopaedia  of  United  States  History,  Vol.  3. 


28 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


tober  1st,  1910,  when  twenty-one  persons  were  killed,  and 
a  property  loss  of  $1,000,000  was  sustained.  This  arrest  was 
soon  followed  by  that  of  his  brother,  James  B.  McNamara 
and  Ortie  E.  McManigal;  by  the  extradition  of  all  three  to 
Los  Angeles;  and  by  their  indictment  on  May  4th  following 
by  the  Grand  Jury  of  that  city.  These  proceedings  were 
followed  by  the  arrest  in  Indianopolis  of  William  J.  Burns, 
the  detective  who  had  worked  up  the  case,  and  several  legal 
representatives  of  Los  Angeles,  on  a  charge  of  having  kid¬ 
napped  the  McNamaras  and  McManigal;  their  release  on 
bail;  the  discovery  of  considerable  quantities  of  dynamite 
stocks  hidden  in  various  places;  the  confession  of  McMani¬ 
gal,  implicating  the  McNamaras  and  disclosing  methods  of 
dynamite  outrages,  and  the  pledge  of  ample  funds  for  the 
defence  of  the  accused.  The  McNamaras  and  many  con¬ 
spicuous  labor  leaders  declared  the  proceedings — so  far  as 
here  outlined — the  result  of  a  conspiracy  by  capital  against 
organized  labor. 

The  general  public  had  been  aware  for  several  years  of 
numerous  mysterious  wreckings  of  buildings,  bridges,  via¬ 
ducts,  and  other  large  public,  private,  and  corporate  struc¬ 
tures  by  dynamite  but  as  none  of  the  perpetrators  of  such 
outrages  had  been  apprehended,  the  incidents  were  usually 
attributed  to  “some  labor  trouble,”  and  then  passed  out  of 
mind.  The  disclosures  in  the  Los  Angeles  case,  however, 
threw  a  new  light  on  the  subject,  and  this  was  intensified  by 
the  publication  of  a  list  of  seventy  dynamite  outrages  that 
had  occurred  between  the  summer  of  1905  and  mid-March, 
1911,  compiled  by  the  National  Erectors’  Association.  Com¬ 
menting  on  this  list  the  NewT  York  Times  said: 

“Practically  no  part  of  the  United  States  has  been  free  from  dyna¬ 
mite  outrages  during  the  last  few  years.  In  nearly  all  cases  there  was  a 
careful  preparation,  showing  that  the  outrages  were  planned  and  executed 
by  men  who  knew  their  business. 

“Many  of  the  outrages  entailed  a  loss  of  life,  and  all  caused  consid¬ 
erable  financial  losses.  Contractors,  in  some  cases,  have  been  driven  into 
bankruptcy  because  of  the  lack  of  confidence  in  their  ability  to  con¬ 
struct  without  disaster,  and  some  contractors  have  been  compelled  to  put 
their  work  in  other  hands. 

“Planning  of  a  professional  nature  has  been  a  striking  feature  of  all 
the  outrages.  In  numerous  instances  clocks  operating  the  explosives 
were  set  to  cause  the  explosion  in  different  parts  of  the  country  at 
exactly  the  same  minute.  Homes  have  been  endangered,  although  in 
most  cases  the  bombs  failed  either  to  explode  or  were  foitnd  in  time  to 
prevent  disaster.” 

After  spending  ten  weeks  in  the  county  jail  at  Los  An¬ 
geles,  John  J.  and  James  B.  McNamara  pleaded  “not  guilty” 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


29 


to  nineteen  charges  of  murder  011  July  12th,  Judge  Walter 
Bordwell  having  overruled  every  point  advanced  by  the  de¬ 
fence  for  the  quashing  of  the  indictments.  The  task  of  se¬ 
lecting  a  jury  proved  a  formidable  one,  owing  to  objections 
interposed  by  counsel  on  both  sides.  By  the  middle  of  No¬ 
vember  325  men  had  been  drawn  and  only  five  accepted,  and 
it  was  then  believed  that  the  jury-box  would  not  be  filled 
before  the  end  of  the  year. 

In  the  meanwhile  (October  28)  Charles  W.  Miller,  United 
States  attorney  at  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  filed  a  petition  in  the 
County  Criminal  Court,  charging  that  a  conspiracy  had  ex¬ 
isted  to  unlawfully  transport  dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  on 
passenger  trains  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  from  that 
city  through  Indiana,  Illinois,  Pennsylvania,  Missouri  and 
California  to  Los  Angeles,  and  asking  possession  of  the  in¬ 
criminating  evidence  seized  by  the  police  at  the  offices  in 
that  city  of  the  International  Association  of  Bridge  and 
Structural  Iron  Workers,  of  which  John  J.  McNamara  was 
was  secretary,  and  at  other  places  in  Indianapolis,  to  be  used 
in  a  federal  grand  jury  investigation. 

By  December  1st,  however,  Detective  Burns  had  woven 
such  a  close  net-work  of  evidence  around  the  accused  that 
on  that  day  James  B.  McNamara  pleaded  guilty  to  murder 
in  the  first  degree,  in  open  court,  in  having  placed  the  dyna¬ 
mite  under  the  Times  Building  in  Los  Angeles,  and  his 
brother,  John  J.  McNamara,  pleaded  guilty  to  having  caused 
a  similar  explosion  at  the  Llewellyn  Iron  Works,  also  in 
Los  Angeles,  from  which  no  fatalities  occurred.  On  Decem¬ 
ber  5th,  Judge  Bordwell  sentenced  James  B.  McNamara  to 
imprisonment  for  life  and  his  brother  to  fifteen  years.  In 
making  his  written  confession  James  B.  McNamara  declared 
that  on  the  night  of  September  30th,  he  had  placed  a  suit¬ 
case  containing  sixteen  sticks  of  80  per  cent,  dynamite,  set 
to  explode  at  one  o’clock  the  next  morning,  in  Ink  Alley, 
a  portion  of  the  Times  Building;  that  it  was  his  intention  to 
injure  the  building  and  scare  the  owners;  and  that  he  did 
not  intend  to  take  the  life  of  any  one. 

After  the  sensational  termination  of  the  McNamara  trial 
in  Los  Angeles  the  federal  grand  jury  there,  as  well  as  that 
at  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  began  a  rigid  inquiry  to  discover  the 
person  or  persons  “higher  up”  who  had  planned,  sanctioned 


30 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


and  supplied  the  funds  for  the  dynamiting  operations  in  va¬ 
rious  parts  of  the  country.  In  this  inquiry  they  were  at  first 
greatly  aided  by  Ortie  E.  McManigal,  who  had  confessed  to 
having  personally  caused  many  explosions  by  direction  of 
James  B.  McNamara,  and  later  by  several  former  employes 
of  McNamara  at  his  headquarters  in  Indianapolis,  and  the 
seizure  of  a  large  quantity  of  records  and  other  evidence,  be¬ 
sides  many  stocks  of  dynamite  that  had  been  secreted  in 
out-of-the-way  places. 

The  following  are  brief  statements  from  the  list  com¬ 
piled  by  the  National  Erectors’  Association: 

Dynamite  Outrages,  1905-191.1 

One  of  the  earliest  of  the  attacks  was  in  the  summer  of  1905,  when 
a  watchman  on  a  bridge  under  construction  for  the  Central  Vermont 
Railroad  at  Miller’s  Falls,  Mass.,  was  assaulted.  The  following  morning 
the  foreman  found  thirteen  sticks  of  dynamite  on  the  bridge.  The  fuse 
had  been  lighted,  but  had  become  extinguished. 

During  the  same  summer  an  engineer  found  dynamite  in  the  fire-box 
of  a  hoisting  engine  used  in  the  construction  of  the  Kimberley  Avenue 
bridge,  over  the  West  River,  for  the  city  of  New  Haven,  Conn. 

An  attempt  was  made  on  March  12,  1906,  to  dynamite  the  Hotel 
Frankfort,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  where  a  number  of  employees  of  a  bridge 
construction  company  were  boarding.  The  dynamite  exploded,  but  the 
wrecked  part  of  the  building  was  reached  in  time  to  prevent  destruction 
by  fire. 

Three  sticks  of  dynamite  were  discovered  in  the  firebox  of  a  hoist¬ 
ing  engine  used  in  the  construction  of  the  Arcade  Building  in  Cleve¬ 
land  on  April  2,  1906.  The  fuse  had  been  attached  and,  it  appeared,  had 
been  lighted. 

An  attempt  was  made  one  month  later  to  wreck  a  derrick  used  in 
constructing  a  bridge  on  the  Buffalo  &  Susquehanna  Railroad.  The  at¬ 
tempt  was  frustrated. 

A  derrick  used  in  the  construction  of  the  Central  Railroad  of  New 
Jersey  was  dynamited  and  destroyed  on  May  31,  1906. 

Dynamite  was  found  on  a  derrick  used  in  the  construction  of  a 
Nickel  Plate  viaduct  on  September  2 5,  1905.  A  time  clock  was  found 
also.  The  infernal  machine  probably  had  been  dropped  from  a  passing 
train,  as  the  package  had  been  broken  open  and  the  dynamite  scattered. 

During  the  construction  of  a  viaduct  for  the  P.  V.  &  C.  Railroad, 
near  Clairton,  Penn.,  a  derrick  car  was  dynamited.  The  outrage  was 
committed  on  Oct.  12,  1906.  A  watchman  was  decoyed  away  from  the 
place  and  assaulted. 

Dynamite  exploded  under  a  bascule  bridge  over  the  Cuyahoga  River 
at  Whiskey  Island,  near  Cleveland,  Ohio,  on  Dec.  30,  1906.  The  damage 
was  slight. 

In,  September,  1907,  a  hoisting  engine,  used  at  the  plant  of  the 
American  Steel  and  Wire  Company,  Cleveland,  was  dynamited  and  de¬ 
stroyed.  The  dynamiting  was  done  at  night. 

Early  in  the  morning  of  Oct.  30,  1907,  an  attempt  was  made  to 

wreck  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  bridge  at  Youngstown,  Ohio.  The  dynamite 
exploded,  but  the  bridge  was  not  wrecked. 

Two  months  later  dynamite  was  placed  under  a  railroad  bridge  on 
the  Newark  Branch  of  the  Erie  Railroad,  near  Harrison,  N.  J.  The 
dynamite  damaged  one  of  the  girders  and  blew  out  thirty-six  square  feet 
of  buckle  plate.  The  damage  was  $2,000. 

Two  tons  of  material  which  was  to  have  been  used  on  the  Parma 
Road  Bridge  on  the  Cleveland  Short  Line  was  damaged  to  such  an  ex¬ 
tent  on  Dec.  31,  1907,  that  it  had  to  be  replaced.  There  was  a  loss  of 
$500. 

On  the  same  night  ten  tons  of  material  for  the  construction  of  the 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


3i 


L.  E.  &  P.  Railroad’s  Mill  Creek  viaduct  was  damaged  and  a  loss  of 
$1,200  resulted. 

Several  girders  for  the  Eagle  Avenue  Bridge,  Cleveland,  were  dyna¬ 
mited  the  night  of  Jan.  17,  1908,  and  considerable  surrounding  property 
was  damaged. 

Thirty  sticks  of  dynamite  were  found  in  various  parts  of  a  derrick- 
car  used  in  the  construction  of  a  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railroad  bridge 
over  the  Mississippi  River  at  Clinton,  Iowa,  on  February  16,  1908.  Only 
a  small  part  of  the  dynamite  exploded.  The  damage  was  $2,000. 

A  month  later  a  derrick-car  on  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul 
Railroad  at  Buena  Park,  Chicago,  was  dynamited. 

During  the  same  month  a  charge  of  dynamite  was  placed  on  a  draw¬ 
bridge  at  Perth  Amboy,  N.  J.,  causing  a  $1,500  loss. 

A  bridge  near  Bradshaw,  Md.,  was  damaged  the  same  night. 

A  hoisting  crane  used  in  the  construction  of  the  Chelsea  Piers, 
New  York,  was  damaged  to  the  extent  of  $1,000  the  night  of  April  5, 
1908. 

A  loss  of  $1,000  was  caused  on  April  13,  1908,  when  dynamite  was 
placed  under  material  prepared  for  the  Philadelphia  Elevated  Railroad. 

An  explosion  of  dynamite  caused  a  loss  of  $2,000,  April  26,  1908, 
at  a  bridge  at  Fall  River,.  Mass. 

Dynamite  caused  a  loss  on  May  3,  1908,  to  the  Cincinnati  Hamilton 
and  Dayton  Railroad’s  Miami  River  bridge  at  Dayton,  Ohio.  Much 
of  the  material  had  to  be  replaced. 

An  attempt  was  made  the  night  of  May  21,  1908,  to  destroy  a  draw¬ 
bridge  over  the  Bronx  River  of  the  New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford 
Railroad.  A  watchman  was  assaulted  and  his  cries  caused  the  would-be 
perpetrators  to  flee.  The  men  discarded  a  suitcase  in  their  flight,  con¬ 
taining  103  sticks  of  dynamite  and  two  coils  of  fuse. 

A  bridge  of  the  same  company  at  Baychester,  N.  Y..  was  damaged 
to  the  extent  of  $1,500  early  the  next  morning. 

An  apparent  attempt  was  made  the  night  of  May  24,  1908,  to  destroy 
a  Baltimore  &  Ohio  bridge  at  Aiken,  Md.  A  watchman  pursued  a  man 
who  was  loitering  about  the  bridge,  and  the  fugitive  tripped  over  a  guy 
wire.  The  next  morning  five  sticks  of  dynamite  were  found  where  he 
fell. 

An  attempt  was  made  June  2,  1908,  to  dynamite  a  Baltimore  &  Ohio 
bridge  at  Perryville,  Md.  Four  men  approached  the  bridge,  but  were 
frightened  away  by  a  watchman,  leaving  dynamite  behind  them. 

The  same  night  an  explosion  of  dynamite  wrecked  a  steel  derrick, 
twisted  the  rear  wall  of  a  big  steel  building  out  of  shape,  and  did  other 
damage  at  Cleveland,  Ohio.  Fourteen  sticks  of  dynamite,  unexploded, 
were  found  later  with  burned  fuses  attached. 

The  evening  of  June  15,  1908,  a  charge  of  dynamite  exploded  under 
a  pile  of  material  used  in  the  construction  of  a  bridge  for  the  New 
York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  Railroad  at  Somerset,  Mass.,  entailing  a 
loss  of  about  $1,000. 

Two  charges  of  dynamite  were  exploded  on  the  bridge  of  the  Lehigh 
Valley  Railroad  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  the  night  of  July  1,  1908,  weakening 
the  structure  and  causing  a  loss  of  $1,500. 

The  Illinois  Central  Railroad  bridge  in  Chicago  was  dynamited  on 
August  6,  1908.  The  loss  was  nearly  $20,000. 

The  same  night  the  Harrison  Avenue  viaduct  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  was 
damaged  by  either  dynamite  or  nitroglycerine. 

Two  charges  of  dynamite  were  exploded  on  the  Eighteenth  Street 
bridge  in  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  on  the  morning  of  August  9,  1908. 

An  attempt  was  made  on  October  15,  1908,  to  destroy  a  bridge  at 
Holyoke,  Mass.  Two  watchmen  found  the  burning  fuse  and  put  it  out 
before  any  damage  was  done. 

A  charge  of  dynamite  wrecked  a  portion  of  a  bridge  at  Cleveland, 
Ohio,  on  November  30,  1908.  The  damage  was  $500. 

Dynamite  wrecked  a  building  in  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  on  December  24, 

1908. 

A  loss  of  $500  was  caused  at  Indiana  Harbor,  Ind.,  on  March  18, 

1909,  when  a  carload  of  steel  was  dynamited. 

During  the  same  month,  at  the  same  place,  two  packages  of  dynamite 
with  a  fuse  attached  were  thrown  from  a  Lake  Shore  freight  train.  No 
damage  was  done. 

The  southeast  side  of  the  new  opera  house  at  Boston,  Mass.,  was 
destroyed  by  dynamite  March  27,  1909. 


32 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


A  part  of  a  viaduct  at  Hoboken,  N.  J.,  and  considerable  surround¬ 
ing  property,  was  damaged  by  dynamite  on  March  30,  1909.  Several 

persons  had  narrow  escapes,  five  or  six  being  injured. 

A  derrick-car  doing  construction  work  at  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  was 

dynamited  on  April  29,  1909. 

The  Cincinnati  Southern  bridge  at  Cincinnati  was  damaged  by  dyna¬ 
mite  the  next  month. 

Another  attempt  was  made  to  wreck  the  same  bridge  on  May  2 4, 

1909,  two  charges  of  dynamite  being  exploded. 

Considerable  damage  was  done  on  June  7,  1909,  to  the  New  York 
Central  Railroad’s  bridge  across  East  Ferry  Street,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

A  loss  of  $2,000  was  caused  by  the  dynamiting  of  material  await¬ 
ing  delivery  June  26,  1909,  for  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  bridge  at 

Steubenville,  Ohio. 

The  same  night  the  Main  Street  viaduct  at  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  under 
construction,  was  dynamited. 

A  suit-case  containing  gun-cotton  was  exploded  under  a  pile  of  steel 
girders  in  the  yard  of  the  Whitehead  &  Kales  plant  at  Detroit,  Mich.,  on 
June  9,  1909. 

A  third  attempt  to  wreck  the  Cincinnati  Southern’s  viaduct  was  made 
August  12,  1909.  The  dynamite  caused  $700  damage. 

Dynamite  partly  wrecked  a  railroad  bridge  in  New  York  City,  August 
15,  1909. 

A  month  later  dynamite  destroyed  a  derrick  used  in  the  construction 
of  a  viaduct  over  the  New  York  Central  Railroad  tracks  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Another  attempt  on  this  same  viaduct  was  made  on  October  6,  1909. 

Four  buildings  under  construction  by  Albert  von  Spreckelsen  in  In¬ 
dianapolis  were  damaged  on  October  24,  1909.  The  total  estimated  loss 
was  $13,000.  The  buildings  were  a  telephone  exchange,  a  library  build¬ 
ing,  Mr.  von  Spreckelsen’s  planing-mill,  and  his  barn. 

A  crane  being  used  in  the  construction  of  a  bridge  near  Cleveland, 
Ohio,  was  dynamited  on  Nov.  4,  1909,  causing  a  loss  of  $40,000.  A 
watchman  was  buried  under  the  debris  and  narrowly  escaped  death. 

A  bomb  was  exploded  under  four  cars  of  structural  steel  on  a  Michi¬ 
gan  Southern  side  track  in  Chicago  on  January  22,  1910.  It  is  estimated 
that  the  damage  was  $3,000. 

The  plant  of  the  Pacific  Coast  and  Lumber  Company,  Oakland,  Cal., 
was  wrecked  by  dynamite  during  the  summer  of  1910,  being  the  fourth 
time  in  two  years. 

An  office  building  being  erected  in  Seattle,  Wash.,  was  destroyed 
by  dynamite  in  September,  1910. 

Dynamite  was  used  in  two  places  in  Peoria,  Ill.,  on  the  night  of 
September  4,  1910.  The  plant  of  the  Lucas  Bridge  and  Iron  Works 
was  wrecked  and  the  night  watchman  was  injured  seriously.  Two  car¬ 
loads  of  steel  girders  for  use  in  a  railroad  bridge  at  Peoria  were  dyna¬ 
mited.  A  two-gallon  can  of  nitroglycerine  was  found  hidden  in  the 

steel  girders  of  the  new  railroad  bridge  the  next  day.  A  time  clock  had 
been  set,  but  the  explosion  was  prevented  by  faulty  electrical  connec¬ 
tions.  The  clock  had  been  set  to  discharge  the  nitroglycerine  at  the 
same  hour  the  Lucas  plant  was  destroyed.  A  bomb  exploded  at  the 

plant  of  the  Winslow  Brothers’  Company  at  Chicago,  on  September  15, 

1910. 

The  Los  Angeles  Times  Building  was  destroyed  on  October  1,  19  to, 
twenty-one  lives  being  lost.  The  property  loss  was  $1,000,000.  This 

was  the  worst  disaster  due  to  an  explosive  that  had  been  recorded. 

A  search  the  next  day  disclosed  dynamite  near  the  home  of  Gen. 
Harrison  Gray  Otis,  owner  of  the  “Times,”  and  the  home  of  the  secre¬ 
tary  of  the  Merchants’  Association. 

In  the  summer  of  1910,  dynamite  was  exploded  in  a  new  church 

structure  at  Clinton,  Ind.,  and  the  building  wrecked.  Shortly  before  a 
bridge  at  the  place  was  wrecked  by  dynamite. 

On  March  20,  19 11,  dynamite  was  exploded  beneath  a  new  wing  of 
a  hotel  under  construction  at  French  Lick,  Ind. 

Early  in  the  morning  of  March  24,  1911,  dynamite  exploded  in  the 
basement  of  the  new  court-house  at  Omaha,  Neb.,  causing  a  large  loss. 

The  same  night  the  office  of  the  Caldwell  &  Drake  Manufacturing 
Company  at  Columbus,  Ind.,  were  dynamited  and  destroyed.  The  plant 
was  not  damaged.  The  Omaha  court-house  was  built  by  the  Columbus 
concern. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


33 


Ore  conveyors  of  Pickands  &  Mather  of  North  Randall,  Ohio,  were 
totally  destroyed  by  dynamite  on  March  25,  19 11. 

St.  Peter’s  Street  (South  Bend,  Ind.)  viaduct  was  dynamited  on 
April  2,  1911.  The  same  day  an  attempt  to  wreck  Grand  Trunk  Bridge 
across  St.  Joseph  River  was  thwarted. 

The  Springfield  (Mass.)  muncipal  building,  in  course  of  construction, 
was  damaged  by  two  dynamite  explosions  on  April  4,  19 11. 

The  Westchester  &  Boston  Railway  viaduct  at  Mount  Vernon,  N.  Y., 
was  wrecked  by  dynamite  on  September  3,  1911. 

The  new  Lyon  County  court-house  in  Yerington,  Nev.,  built  of  re¬ 
inforced  concrete,  was  damaged  beyond  repair  by  a  dynamite  explosion, 
December  18,  19 11. 


THE  BOYCOTT1 

A  boycott  in  labof  disputes  may  be  defined  as  a  combi¬ 
nation  of  workmen  to  cease  all  dealings  with  another,  an 
employer  or,  at  times,  a  fellow  worker,  and,  usually,  also 
to  induce  or  to  coerce  third  parties  to  cease  such  dealings, 
the  purpose  being  to  persuade  or  to  force  such  other  to  com¬ 
ply  with  some  demand  or  to  punish  him  for  non-compliance 
in  the  past. 

The  boycott  may  be  divided  into  the  primary,  the  second¬ 
ary,  and  the  compound  boycotts.  A  primary  boycott,  an 
unimportant  form,  may  be  defined  as  a  simple  combination 
of  persons  to  suspend  dealings  with  a  party  obnoxious  to 
them,  involving  no  attempt  to  persuade  or  to  coerce  third 
persons  to  suspend  dealings  also. 

A  secondary  boycott  consists  of  a  combination  of  work¬ 
men  to  induce  or  persuade  third  parties  to  suspend  business 
relations  with  those  against  whom  they  have  a  grievance. 
A  compound  boycott  appears  when  the  workmen  use  co¬ 
ercive  and  intimidating  measures  in  preventing  third  parties 
from  dealing  with  the  boycotted  firms. 

Compound  boycotts  are  of  two  kinds:  those  involving 
threats  or  pecuniary  injury  and  those  involving  threats  of 
actual  physical  force  and  violence. 

The  primary,  secondary  and  compound  forms  of  the  boy¬ 
cott  may  be  directed  against  a  fellow  workman  or  against 
an  employer  of  labor.  If  directed  against  a  workman,  it  is 
sometimes  called  a  labor  boycott.  In  enforcing  a  boycott, 
effort  is  sometimes  made  to  induce  or  coerce  customers  to 
withdraw  patronage  from  the  “unfair”  employer;  sometimes 
to  induce  or  coerce  sellers  to  cease  supplying  an  “unfair” 


1  American  Labor  Year  Book,  1916.  p.  84-5.  Bv  Harry  W.  Laidler. 


34 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


employer  with  needed  material;  sometimes  to  induce  or  co¬ 
erce  employes  to  quit  work.  The  last  named  form  is  known 
in  law  as  a  labor  boycott. 

Five  states  prohibit  boycotting  by  name.  Thirty-three 
states  make  illegal  one  or  more  forms  under  statutes  relating 
to  conspiracy,  coercion,  intimidation,  interference  with  em¬ 
ployment,  and  enticing  employes. 

The  common  law  decisions  in  the  states  have  generally 
held  the  primary  boycotts  legal.  As  nearly  as  can  be  ascer¬ 
tained,  the  highest  courts  have  flatly  decided  against  second¬ 
ary  or  compounding  boycotting  in  some  fourteen  states.  In 
two  states  labor  boycotts  only  have  been  condemned. 

The  cases  among  others  in  which  boycotting  has  been 
declared  legal  are:  Lindsay  Co.  vs.  Montana  Federation  of 
Labor  (Montana  1908)  96  Pac.  127;  Parkinson  and  Co.  vs. 
Buildings  Trades  Council  (California  1908)  98  Pac.  1027; 
Pierce  vs.  Stablemen’s  Union  (California  1909)  103  Pac.  324; 
National  Protective  Association  vs.  Cummings  (New  York 
1902)  63  N.  E.  369;  and  Mills  vs.  U.  S.  Printing  Co.  (New 
York  1904)  99  App.  Div.  605. 


INTIMIDATION  AND  DEPORTATION1 

In  the  early  spring  of  1917  a  number  of  small  strikes  oc¬ 
curred  among  the  loggers  of  Idaho  and  eastern  Washington. 
These  strikes  were  repeated  until  about  the  first  of  June.  Two 
thirds  of  the  lumber  workers  of  Idaho,  Montana,  and  eastern 
Washington  were  out  and  the  strike  had  spread  to  the  eastern 
slope  of  the  Cascades  in  Washington.  It  was  at  this  time  that 
a  series  of  persecutions  started  which  continued  throughout  the 
war.  Two  Camps  of  the  third  Oregon  Infantry  were  sent  to 
Cle  Eum  and  they  rounded  up  all  the  pickets,  threw  them  into 
the  stockade  at  Ellensburg,  Wash.,  where  they  were  held  for 
months  without  charges  being  placed  against  them. 

Soldiers  were  sent  to  many  points  in  Washington  and  Idaho 
where  the  same  thing  occurred.  In  the  meantime  the  strike 
had  spread  into  the  rich  timber  belt  of  Puget  Soun-d  and  by 
July  15,  1917  fifty  thousand  lumber  workers  were  on  strike, 


1  Extract  from  an  article  by  Peter  Stone.  Acting  Secretary-Treasurer 
of  the  I.  W.  W.  in  The  American  Labor  Year  Book,  1919-1920,  p,  191-2. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


35 


their  demands  being  a  basic  eight  hour  day  and  sanitary  camp 
conditions. 

On  June  12,  1917  fourteen  thousand  miners  in  the  city  of 
Butte,  Mont.,  went  on  strike  following  the  loss  of  two  hundred 
sixty  lives  in  a  fire  in  the  Speculator  mine.  The  strike  was 
principally  for  the  abolition  of  the  blacklist  and  for  union 
control  of  safety  appliances  underground.  This  strike  was 
called  and  conducted  jointly  by  the  I.  W.  W.  and  the  Inde¬ 
pendent  Miners’  Union  of  that  city.  The  strike  was,  however, 
taken  up  by  the  I.  W.  W.  miners  in  Arizona,  where  twenty-four 
thousand  miners  went  out. 

On  July  10  nearly  a  hundred  miners  in  Jerome,  Ariz.,  were 
taken  from  their  homes  early  in  the  morning  by  the  so-called 
Loyalty  League.  They  were  loaded  on  cattle  cars.  The  train 
was  headed  towards  California,  but  was  turned  back  at  the 
state  line  by  the  officials  of  that  state.  The  men  were  then 
taken  to  Prescott,  Ariz.,  where  they  were  held  in  jail  for  three 
weeks  before  they  were  released. 

At  Bisbee,  Ariz.,  at  five  o’clock  in  the  morning  of  July  12, 
two  thousand  company  officials,  gunmen,  business  men  etc., 
armed  with  rifles,  similarly  dragged  twelve  hundred  strikers 
and  their  sympathizers  from  their  beds  and  compelled  them 
to  march  miles  to  Lowell  and  neighboring  towns.  They  were 
finally  coralled  into  a  ball  park  at  Lowell,  until  a  train  of  cattle 
cars  was  made  up.  The  miners  were  forced  into  the  cars  amid 
rioting,  in  which  one  man,  a  striker,  was  killed.  The  train  was 
sent  through  the  desert  and  finally  taken  charge  of  by  the 
United  States  soldiers  encamped  at  Columbus,  N.  M. 

Here  they  stayed  for  three  months,  being  furnished  army  ra¬ 
tions,  waiting  for  the  government  to  give  them  protection  in 
returning  to  Bisbee.  This  the  government  steadfastly  refused 
to  do,  and  finally,  when  the  army  rations  were  cut  off,  the  camp 
broken  up.  Some  of  the  men  drifted  back  to  Bisbee  where 
they  were  promtly  arrested.  Others  scattered  to  different  parts 
of  the  country. 


STRIKE-BREAKING1 


The  most  recent  institution  for  meeting  the  exigencies  of 
modern  industrial  life  is  an  establishment  concerned  in  strike- 


1  New  Encyclopaedia  of  Social  Reform,  p.  1167. 


36 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


breaking.  This  is  an  agency  which  provides  men  to  factories, 
street-car  lines,  etc.,  the  employees  of  which  have  gone  on 
strike.  The  strike-breakers  are  not  a  hoodlum  class,  neither 
are  they  men  looking  for  excitement  or  occasional  work;  but 
a  set  of  picked  men,  each  skilled  in  a  particular  line  of  work. 
The  agency  has  about  225,000  men  on  its  lists  in  different  trades 
throughout  the  United  States.  The  handling  of  such  an  army 
of  workmen  and  their  proper  placing  at  times  of  need  re¬ 
quires  system. 

Candidates,  in  order  to  get  their  names  on  the  list,  must 
pass  a  rigorous  examination  as  to  character  and  physical  and 
professional  fitness.  A  corps  of  twenty-three  men  is  detailed  to 
examine  candidates.  When  a  strike  is  impending  or  has  been 
declared,  this  agency  is  notified  by  the  employers,  and  it  con¬ 
tracts  to  supply  a  sufficient  number  of  skilled  men  to  take  the 
place  of  the  strikers,  and  then  selects  its  men,  each  of  whom 
must  sign  an  agreement  to  keep  at  work  on  the  new  job  at  least 
thirty  days.  Traveling  expenses  in  addition  to  good  wages  are 
paid  by  the  agency.  The  agency  maintains  a  commissary  and 
a  quartermaster’s  department  to  feed  and  house  the  strike¬ 
breakers,  and  is  able  to  fill  the  strikers’  places  within  a  very 
short  time. 

Strike-breakers  are,  however,  frequently  exposed  to  violence 
on  the  part  of  the  strikers  and  their  friends.  A  department  of 
protection  has  been  formed  by  the  agency  to  provide  adequate 
protection  for  its  men.  The  head  of  this  department  is  in  touch 
with  sheriffs  and  police  officials  all  over  the  country.  His 
men,  numbering  between  500  and  600,  are  sworn  in  as  special 
deputies  on  each  occasion  so  as  to  have  a  legal  standing;  they 
are  under  military  discipline  and  must  pass  an  examination 
equivalent  to  that  for  the  police  department  of  New  York. 

While  the  department  of  protection  is  well  organized  and 
reckless  or  irresponsible  men  are  kept  out,  it  is  nevertheless  a 
reflection  on  the  city,  state  or  county  to  have  need  of  this 
private  army  of  detectives  or  deputies  for  the  protection  of 
private  or  corporate  property.  The  agency  has  succeeded  well 
in  breaking  strikes,  and  has  attained  large  financial  success. 
But  it  is  open  to  the  same  objection  as  the  Pinkertons  (q.v.) 
and  other  private  semimilitary  organizations  within  the  state 
having  the  privileges  but  not  the  responsibilities  of  public  of¬ 
ficials. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


37 


THE  PINKERTON  AGENCY  AND  LABOR 

STRUGGLES  1 

In  1852  Allan  G.  Pinkerton,  a  Scotchman,  involved  in  the 
Chartist  outbreak  in  Birmingham,  emigrated  to  the  United 
States,  and  here,  having  from  love  of  adventure  secured  the 
arrest  of  a  band  of  counterfeiters,  established  in  Chicago  a 
detective  agency.  His  agency  was  successful,  and  during  the 
War  of  the  Rebellion,  Mr.  Pinkerton  superintended  the  secret 
service  of  the  army.  When  the  industrial  conditions  of  the 
country  led  to  violence  and  strikes,  Pinkerton  organized  a  body 
of  armed  men  who  were  hired  to  protect  the  property  of  the 
employers.  Later,  in  thb  labor  troubles  in  Pennsylvania,  Pink¬ 
erton's  Agency  was  employed  against  the  Molly  Maguires,  a 
secret  society  founded  in  the  coal-mining  section  of  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  which  was  exposed  chiefly  through  the  instrumentality  of 
James  McParlan,  a  detective,  and  Franklin  B.  Gowan,  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  Pennsylvania  &  Reading  Coal  &  Iron  Company. 
Henceforth  the  Pinkerton  Agency  was  employed  more  and 
more  by  employers  to  defend  their  works  from  threatened 
violence  on  the  part  of  mobs  in  connection  with  strikes.  They 
became  bitterly  hated  by  working  men.  The  working  men 
claim  that  the  Pinkertons  do  more  than  protect  the  property  of 
their  employers.  They  claim  that  the  agency  goes  into  the 
slums  of  the  great  cities,  hires  desperadoes  and  men  of  the 
worst  character,  swears  them  in  as  special  detectives,  and  then 
sends  them  not  only  to  protect  the  property  of  employers,  but 
to  incense  the  populace  and  provoke  it  to  violence,  then  firing 
upon  the  populace  on  the  least  provocation.  The  working  men 
claim  that  the  Pinkertons  create  more  evil  than  they  allay. 
Stories  are  circulated  of  the  Pinkertons  secretly  doing  violence 
themselves,  laying  it  to  working  men,  and  then  firing  on  them. 
In  the  great  Homestead  strike  Pinkertons  in  large  numbers  and 
armed  with  rifles  were  brought  to  Homestead,  the  working  men 
rising  and  repulsing  them  as  they  would  an  invading  army. 
Working  men  claim  that  the  duty  of  protecting  property  should 
be  left  to  the  police;  that  if  these  are  not  sufficient,  the  army 
should  be  called  in,  but  that  bodies  of  reckless  armed  private 
mercenaries  should  not  be  allowed  to  fire  on  citizens.  As  a 

1  New  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform,  p.  896-7. 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS'. 


38 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


result  of  this  popular  feeling,  Congress  appointed  a  committee 
to  investigate  into  the  employment  of  such  private  armed  bodies 
of  men,  and  some  states  passed  bills  forbidding  such  employ¬ 
ment. 

Nevertheless,  the  Pinkerton  and  other  agencies  are  con¬ 
tinually  employed  in  times  of  strikes,  and  the  former  is  said 
to  have  been  particularly  active  in  the  Colorado  labor  struggles. 
During  the  Haywood  trial  (June  1907)  attempts  were  made 
by  labor  agitators  to  charge  the  Pinkerton  agents  with  foment¬ 
ing  strife  among  and  violence  on  the  part  of  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners.  A  number  of  letters  from  operatives 
in  the  pay  of  the  Pinkerton  agency  were  placed  in  evidence  in 
court,  which,  however,  proved  nothing  more  than  spying  on 
the  part  of  these  men.  The  letters  were  obtained  and  placed 
before  the  court  on  behalf  of  the  defense  by  Morris  Fried¬ 
man,  a  young  Hebrew-American,  who  testified  that  he  had  been 
stenographer  to  McParland,  the  manager  of  the  Denver  agency, 
and  admitted  that  he  had  taken  many  letters  from  that  office, 
without  asking  anybody’s  permission,  for  use  at  the  “proper 
time  and  place,  as  I  have  done.”  These  letters,  together  with 
other  evidence,  were,  however,  stricken  out  and  withdrawn 
from  the  jury  in  the  Haywood  trial  (1907)  as  soon  as  the 
defense  rested  without  making  the  necessary  connection  to  make 
them  material.  Friedman  admitted  having  written  a  book  based 
on  his  observations  in  the  Pinkerton  office  under  the  title  “The 
Pinkerton  Labor  Spy.”  The  publishers  of  this  work  in  their 
preface  state  that  they  “recognize  the  Pinkerton  agency  as  an 
indispensable  instrument  to  the  capitalist  class  in  the  great  and 
unceasing  struggle  with  labor.”  (For  a  complete  statement  of 
this  phase,  and  a  statement  of  contrary  views,  see  article 
Western  Federation  of  Miners  in  New  Encyclopedia  of  Social 
Reform.) 

The  assertion  that  Pinkerton  agents  have  been  engaged  in 
espionage  in  the  interests  of  capitalists  has  not  been  denied, 
and  the  practice  concerns  this  work,  therefore,  only  in  its  re¬ 
lations  to  society.  The  Pinkertons  were  responsible  for  the 
disbanding  of  the  “Molly  Maguires” ;  for  the  capture  of  a  gang 
of  thieves  who  had  robbed  the  Adams  Express  Company  safe 
of  $700,000  on  a  New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  Railroad 
train  (Jan.  6,  1866),  and  in  dispersing  a  body  of  murderers  who 
had  terrorized  the  State  of  Indiana  for  a  number  of  years. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


39 


Why  do  private  corporations  employ  private  detective 
agencies  instead  of  calling  upon  the  police  of  the  municipal¬ 
ities  and  the  constabulary  of  the  states?  Is  it  from  choice  or 
from  necessity?  Why  do,  moreover,  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  the  governors  of  the  states,  and  the  mayors  of 
the  cities  in  this  country  permit  such  agencies  to  exist?  Other 
civilized  countries  do  not  permit  private  police  agencies  to  inter¬ 
fere  with  the  state  agencies  of  public  safety.  Why,  then,  has 
such  a  condition  arisen  in  this  country? 

There  can  be  only  one  answer  to  these  questions.  The  inade¬ 
quacy  and  the  inefficiency  of  our  police  force — taking  this  work 
ill  its  widest  sense,  as  implying  all  agencies  that  have  to  do  with 
the  prevention  and  detection  of  crime,  the  maintenance  of  pub¬ 
lic  safety,  and  the  protection  of  life  and  property.  This  inef¬ 
ficiency  may  be  due  to  one  or  all  of  three  causes:  (i) 
Paucity  of  numbers  in  the  force;  (2)  intellectual  deficiency  of 
the  men  employed;  (3)  lack  of  integrity. 

THE  RIGHT  TO  STRIKE  1 

What  is  the  right  of  strike?  If  it  means  the  right  of  men 
to  quit  private  employment  individually  or  collectively  every 
one  will  concede  it.  No  man  can  be  made  to  work  against  his 
will  in  free  America,  except  he  becomes  a  vagrant  or  a  convict. 
But  the  right  to  quit  work  essentially  involves  the  correspond¬ 
ing  right  to  continue  at  work,  and  one  is  just  as  sacred  as  the 
other.  Government  should  not  deny  or  diminish  either.  It 
should,  if  need  be,  sustain  men  in  the  exercise  of  both.  Upon 
this  proposition  I  think  we  agree. 

But  beyond  this  point  the  divergence  begins.  The  mere 
right  to  quit  working  does  not  define  the  organized  wage 
earner’s  conception  of  a  strike.  That  is  purely  negative  and  ac¬ 
complishes  nothing.  What  he  understands  and  what  he  has 
been  taught  to  understand  by  his  leaders,  by  political  parties, 
and  candidates  anxious  for  his  vote,  is  that  the  strike  is  a 
weapon  which  he  has  the  right  to  wield  offensively  or  defen¬ 
sively  in  order  to  effectuate  the  purpose  for  which  he  invokes 
it.  He  may,  in  pursuance  of  it,  disregard  contracts,  compel 
others  to  strike,  prevent  others  from  taking  his  place  and  con- 

1  Extract  from  a  letter  of  Senator  Charles  S.  Thomas  to  Samuel 
Gompers,  Congressional  Record,  December  2,  1919. 


40 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


tinuing  operation ;  he  may  destroy  property  and  terrorize  com¬ 
munities  if  by  doing  these  things  or  any  of  them  he  may  ac¬ 
complish  his  object,  even  though  it  may  rise  to  the  dignity  of  a 
conspiracy  against  trade. 

He  does  not,  it  is  true,  openly  avow  his  right  to  go  so  far 
as  this,  but  in  practice  they  feature  every  prolonged  strike  of 
any  magnitude. 

The  word  itself  implies  force ;  violence  lurks  within  it. 
Aggression  is  its  synonym.  Henry  George,  himself  a  trade- 
unionist  than  whom  labor  had  no  better  friend  nor  abler  cham¬ 
pion,  thus  characterized  the  strike  in  a  letter  to  Pope  Leo  XIII : 

“Aiming  at  the  restrictions  of  competition— the  limitation  of  the  right 
to  labor — its  methods  are  like  those  of  the  army,  which  even  in  a 
righteous  cause  are  subversive  of  liberty  and  liable  to  abuse  while  its 
weapon,  the  strike,  is  destructive  in  its  nature  both  to  combatants  and 
noncombatants  *  *  *  Labor  associations  can  do  nothing  to  raise  wages 

but  by  force.  It  may  be  force  applied  passively  or  force  applied  actively 
or  force  held  in  reserve,  but  it  must  be  force.  They  must  coerce  or 
hold  the  power  to  coerce  employers;  they  must  coerce  those  among  their 
own  members  disposed  to  straggle;  they  must  do  their  best  to  get  into 
their  hands  the  whole  field  of  labor  they  seek  to  occupy,  and  to  force 
other  workmen  either  to  join  them  or  to  starve.”  *  *  * 

We  judge  the  strike  by  what  we  know  it  to  be  in  practice. 
There  it  is  war  against  competition.  Woe  to  the  man  or  the 
men  who  would  take  the  place  of  the  strikers.  Quoting  again 
from  Henry  George: 

“They  must  do  their  best  to  starve  workmen  who  do  not  join  them; 
they  must  by  all  means  in  their  power  force  back  the  scab  as  a  soldier 
in  battle  must  shoot  down  his  mother’s  son,  if  in  the  opposing  ranks, 
a  fellow  creature  seeking  work,  a  fellow  creature,  in  all  probability  more 
pressed  and  starved  than  those  who  bitterly  denounce  him  and  often 
with  the  hungry,  pleading  faces  of  wife  and  child  behind  him.  And  in 
so  far  as  they  succeed,  what  is  it  that  trades,  guilds  and  unions  do  but 
to  impose  more  restriction  on  natural  rights;  to  create  “trusts”  in  labor 
to  add  to  privileged  classes  other  somewhat  privileged  classes;  to  press 
the  weaker  to  the  wall.” 

Mr.  Foster  says  they  must  be  “exterminated  like  vermin.” 
We  must  not  too  severely  denounce  this  policy,  for  it  is  the 
inexorable  consequence  of  the  denial  to  the  citizen  of  the 
right  to  work  when  and  as  he  will  whether  he  affiliates  with 
his  fellows  or  not.  The  source  of  our  present  difficulties  is  the 
failure  of  government  to  recognize  and  to  vindicate  this  funda¬ 
mental  right,  which  no  man  of  intelligence  has  ever  publicly 
challenged,  but  to  which  all  men  have  long  been  callously  in¬ 
different. 

This  is  the  real  menace  of  the  coal  strike,  and  is  the  element 
which  invokes  the  interference  of  the  government.  The  miners 
may  refuse  to  work  and  be  within  their  constitutional  rights ; 
but  while  they  so  refuse,  few  men  dare  to  continue  mining  and 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


4i 


fewer  to  enter  that  field,  however  dire  the  necessity  for  fuel, 
because  of  the  certain  danger  involved.  They  are  sure  to  en¬ 
counter  the  power  of  the  national  organization,  to  be  expressed 
in  terms  of  boycott,  violence,  assault,  and  murder.  Without 
the  protection  of  their  government,  the  industry  is  suspended. 
It  is  a  basic  one,  and  that  spells  the  ultimate  suspension  of  all 
dependent  industries.  Idleness,  nonproduction,  food  and  fuel 
scarcity,  suffering,  starvation,  riot,  lawlessness,  and  demoraliza¬ 
tion.  Nation  wide  in  extent  are  the  inevitable  consequences. 
These  affect  us  all,  everywhere.  It  has  become  the  nation’s 
business.  It  is  its  most  insistent  business.  It  will  be  effectu¬ 
ally  attended  to  whatever  the  cost  and  however  we  may  differ 
regarding  congressional  discussion  and  department  assurances. 

Meanwhile  all,  I  trust,  will  perceive  in  the  pending  strike 
the  futility  of  industrial  warfare.  It  is  expensive,  destructive, 
estranging.  Only  by  recognizing  our  reciprocal  rights,  duties, 
and  obligations,  and  the  essential  of  every  element  of  society 
and  economics  to  the  whole,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  our 
mutual  dependence  and  its  resulting  sympathy,  by  the  humane 
and  cordial  cooperation  of  employer,  employee,  manager, 
farmer,  capitalist,  and  ruler  for  the  common  good  can  we  solve 
the  unhappy  and  deep-seated  problems  now  surrounding  us  and 
maintain  our  high  position  in  the  civilized  world.  When  pas¬ 
sion,  class  antagonisms,  and  selfishness  give  way  to  the  convic¬ 
tion  that  industrial  war,  whatever  the  immediate  result,  means 
mutual  disaster,  the  sober  common  sense  and  enlightened  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  common  people  will  peacefully  but  effectually 
solve  our  difficulties  and  tide  us  over  all  domestic  crises. 
Civilization  is  not  a  creation  but  an  evolution.  It  is  the  fruit 
of  spontaneous  cooperation  continuing  through  centuries.  Vio¬ 
lence  can  destroy  but  can  not  promote  it.  Thrift  and  produc¬ 
tion  are  its  corner  stones.  I  trust  the  minds  and  consciences  of 
all  men  many  swiftly  perceive  these  fundamental  truths,  com¬ 
pose  their  differences,  and  begin  the  old  life  anew. 


MR.  GOMPERS’  REPLY1 

You  ask: 

What  is  the  right  of  a  strike?  If  it  means  the  right  of  men  to  quit 
private  employment  individually  or  collectively,  everyone  will  concede  it. 
No  man  can  be  made  to  work  against  his  will  in  free  America  except 
he  becomes  a  vagrant  or  convict. 


1  Extract  from  the  letter  of  Samuel  Gompers  to  Senator  Charles  S. 
Thomas,  Congressional  Record,  January  5,  1920. 


42 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Very  true.  That  is  what  labor  contends.  Then  why  are  the 
miners  pilloried  as  enemies  of  government.  Why  are  they  de¬ 
clared  disloyal  because  they  struck.  You  add: 

But  the  right  to  quit  work  essentially  involves  the  corresponding 
right  to  continue  at  work,  and  one  is  just  as  sacred  as  the  other. 

Certainly.  That  right  is  possessed  by  the  workers.  Free  men 
can  work  or  quit  work  for  any  reason  or  no  reason.  No  one 
can  control  their  labor  except  themselves,  for  it  is  not  a  com¬ 
modity.  It  is  a  part  of  their  very  being.  Therefore  the  “right” 
to  work  or  not  to  work  is  inherent  in  the  workers  themselves. 
But  the  idea  seems  to  be  arbitralily  to  take  away  this  natural 
right  by  acting  as  if  the  labor  of  a  human  being  is  a  com¬ 
modity  or  an  article  of  commerce. 

In  the  attitude  of  labor  in  peace  and  in  war  in  March,  1917, 
previously  referred  to,  this  was  incorporated : 

We  maintain  that  it  is  the  fundamental  step  in  preparedness  for  the 
Nation  to  set  its  own  house  in  order  and  to  establish  at  home  justice  in 
relations  between  men.  Previous  wars,  for  whatever  purpose  waged, 
developed  new  opportunities  for  exploiting  wage  earners.  Not  only  was 
there  failure  to  recognize  the  necessity  for  protecting  rights  of  workers 
that  they  might  give  that  whole-heai'ted  service  to  the  country  that  can 
come  only  when  every  citizen  enjoys  rights,  freedom,  and  opportunity, 
but  under  guise  of  national  necessity  labor  was  stripped  of  its  means  of 
defense  against  enemies  at  home  and  was  robbed  of  the  advantages,  the 
protections,  the  guaranties  of  justice,  that  had  been  achieved  after  ages 
of  struggle.  For  these  reasons  workers  have  felt  that  no  matter  what 
the  result  of  war,  as  wage  earners  they  generally  lost. 

Does  it  not  appear  now  that  the  autocratic  methods  used  dur¬ 
ing  the  war  and  accepted  by  the  workers  as  a  means  to  win  the 
conflict  are  now  to  be  continued  in  the  interest  of  the  em¬ 
ployers?  It  is  not  fair.  It  is  not  right.  Can  such  a  policy  be 
defended  by  honest  men? 

You  state  that  “civilization  is  not  a  creation  but  an  evolu¬ 
tion.” 

More  than  2,500  years  ago  the  workers  had  their  trade- 
unions.  They  were  called  collegias,  and  when  permitted  by 
law  their  activities  were  confined  to  sick  and  burial  benefits. 
Wherever  these  collegias  existed  the  enlightenment  of  the 
people  was  the  greatest.  For  their  ethics  were  adopted  by  the 
people  as  a  whole.  Members  of  these  collegias  500  years  before 
the  Christian  era  declared,  among  other  things,  for  the  principle 
of  one  wife. 

Since  trade-unions  were  first  formed  they  have  sought  the 
economic  advancement  of  humanity.  They  were  the  pioneers  in 
America  in  demanding  compulsory  education.  Their  efforts 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


43 


brought  safety,  sanitary,  and  health  legislation.  Their  every 
aspiration  has  been  to  bring  happiness  into  the  home.  In  order 
to  make  plain  the  position  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  to  the  whole  people,  a  few  extracts  from  the  proceedings 
of  conventions  will  not  be  out  of  place.  They  are — 

In  1887  it  was  declared: 

The  opportunities  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  are  that  it 
may  become  a  grand  and  powerful  organization,  fulfilling  its  great  mis¬ 
sion  to  bring  the  working  people  into  the  various  organizations  of  the 
trades,  to  assist  in  the  amelioration  of  their  conditions,  to  raise  mankind 
to  a  higher  level,  aspiring  to  a  nobler  civilization. 

In  1888  this  declaration  was  made : 

The  benefit  the  American^  Federation  of  Labor  has  been  in  the  period 
of  its  existence  to  the  toiling  masses  of  our  country  is  more,  probably, 
than  will  be  told  before  generations  to  come.  There  is  scarcely  a  divi¬ 
sion  of  thought  upon  the  question  that  the  workers,  being  the  pro¬ 
ducers  of  all  the  wealth  of  the  world,  should  at  least  enjoy  more  of  the 
results  of  their  toil.  On  every  hand  we  see  fortunes  amassing,  elegant 
mansions  and  immense  business  houses  rearing;  we  see  the  intricate 
machinery  in  its  rotary  motions  the  genius  of  man,  all  applied  to  the 
production  of  the  wealth  of  the  world;  and  yet  in  the  face  of  this 
thousands  of  our  poor,  helpless  brothers  and  sisters,  strong,  able-bodied, 
willing  to  work,  unable  to  find  it,  hungry  and  emaciated,  without  suffi¬ 
cient  to  properly  nourish  the  body  or  to  maintain  the  mental  balance. 
On  the  other  hand,  others  bent  by  their  long-continued  drudgery  and 
unrequitted  toil.  While  these  wrongs  have  been  upon  the  body  politic 
from  ages  gone  by,  we  can  yet  trace  the  improvements  in  the  condition 
of  the  people  by  reason  of  our  various  organizations.  Wherever  the 
working  people  have  manifested  their  desire  for  improvement  by  or¬ 
ganization  there,  as  with  a  magic  wand,  improvement  has  taken  place. 
Wherever  the  working  people  are  the  poorest,  most  degraded,  and 
miserable,  there  can  we  find  the  greatest  lack  of  organization;  and  in 

the  same  degree  as  the  basis  of  organization  is  improved,  there  can  we 

see  the  greatest  improvement  in  the  material,  and  social  condition  of 
the  people. 

In  1902  the  convention  declared : 

This  session  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  marks  an  episode 

in  the  progress  of  enlightenment  unparalleled  in  the  world’s  history. 

We  meet  in  solid  phalanx,  regardless  of  creed,  regardless  of  dogma; 
with  national  pride  but  without  international  prejudice.  The  world  is 
our  field  of  action,  and  man  is  our  brother.  We  not  only  proclaim, 
under  the  unsullied  and  untarnished  banner  of  trade  unionism,  but  live 
the  principles  of  liberty,  equality,  fraternity,  and  justice.  Ours  is  an 
affiliation  of  men  of  like  interests  and  of  kindred  spirit.  It  is  the  nat¬ 
ural  growth  of  a  sentiment  for  unity  that  binds  and  seals  the  compact 
for  harmony,  fidelity,  and  fellowship.  Our  cause  demands  that  there 
is  no  worker  so  deep  down  in  the  abyss  of  misery  and  despair  that  we 
dare  refuse  to  extend  a  helping  hand  in  his  uplifting;  that  there  is  no 
high  pinnacle  of  grandeur  to  which  the  toiling  masses  should  not  aspire 
to  attain.  The  trade  unions  are  of,  by,  and  for  the  wage-workers 
primarily,  but  there  is  no  effort  which  we  in  our  movement  can  make 
but  what  will  have  its  beneficent  salutary  influence  upon  all  our  people. 
The  misery  of  the  past,  the  struggles  of  the  present,  and  the  duty  of 
the  future,  demand  that  no  effort  be  left  untried,  that  all  energy  be 
exercised  and  opportunity  taken  advantage  of  to  organize  the  toilers  of 
our  country  upon  the  broad  platform  of  the  trade  union,  in  full  affiliation 
with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  The  dim,  dismal  past,  with 
all  its  pain  and  travail,  must  give  way  to  the  better  and  brighter  future 
for  which  the  workers  have  borne  the  burdens  and  made  the  sacrifices 
that  the  people  of  our  time,  and  for  all  time,  may  be  truly  free. 


44 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


In  1906  it  was  said : 

Who  can  estimate  or  even  dream  of  the  benefits  that  have  accrued  to 
the  working  people  through  the  efforts  of  the  trade-union  movement  as 
embodied  in  the  American  federation  of  Labor?  What  has  it  brought 
in  the  way  of  better  homes,  better  food,  a  less  number  of  children  of 
our  members  in  the  factory,  mill,  or  shop?  A  wider,  better,  more  en¬ 
joyable,  and  comfortable  life.  Who  will  or  can  measure  the  work  of 
the  trade-union,  either  in  the  world  of  industry,  in  our  social  surround¬ 
ings,  or  in  moral  growth?  To  have  seen  a  part  of  this  work  and  accom¬ 
plishments  should  nerve  us  to  still  greater  efforts  to  the  future. 

In  1910  it  was  declared : 

Organized  labor  contends  for  the  improvements  of  the  standard  of 
life,  to  uproot  ignorance  and  foster  education,  to  instill  character  and 
manhood  and  independent  spirit  among  our  people,  to  bring  about  a 
recognition  of  the  interdependence  of  the  modern  life  of  man  and  his 
fellow  man.  It  aims  to  establish  a  normal  workday,  take  the  children 
from  the  factory  and  the  workshop  and  place  them  in  the  school,  the 
home,  and  the  playground.  In  a  word,  the  unions  of  labor,  recognizing 
the  duty  of  toil,  strive  to  educate  their  members,  to  make  their  homes 
more  cheerful  in  every  way,  to  contribute  an  earnest  effort  toward  mak¬ 
ing  life  the  better  worth  living,  to  avail  their  members  of  their  rights 
as  citizens,  and  to  bear  the  duties  and  responsibilities  and  perform  the 
obligations  they  owe  to  our  country  and  our  fellow  men.  Labor  con¬ 
tends  that  in  every  effort  to  achieve  its  praiseworthy  ends  all  honor¬ 
able  and  lawful  means  are  not  only  commendable  but  should  receive  the 
sympathetic  support  of  every  right-thinking,  progressive  man. 

But  the  assertion  made  by  you  that  “violence  can  destroy  but 

1 

can  not  promote  civilization”  can  best  be  answered  by  refer¬ 
ring  to  a  few  of  the  incidents  of  violence  that  have  benefited 
and  encouraged  civilization.  Did  not  the  Crusaders  encourage 
Christianity?  Did  not  the  French  Revolution  advance  civiliza¬ 
tion  by  leaps  and  bounds?  Did  not  the  Civil  War  free  the 
slaves  in  the  United  States?  This  was  violence  in  the  extreme. 

In  labor  strikes  there  sometimes  is  violence.  But  it  is  not 
premeditated  nor  committed  with  the  consent  of  the  trade- 
unions.  There  is  always  more  or  less  violence  between  indi¬ 
viduals,  whether  strikes  are  in  progress  or  there  is  industrial 
peace. 

Did  not  the  Great  War  decide  that  men  and  governments 
should  be  free  to  work  out  their  own  destiny  in  a  lawful  way? 
Did  not  its  outcome  make  for  civilization?  While  we  still  feel 
its  effects  and  the  people  have  not  been  restored  to  their  normal 
state  of  civilization,  they  will  be  advanced  many  years  at  a 
jump  because  of  it. 

Man  is  combative,  and  yet  you  must  know  that  there  is  no 
factor  in  all  our  country  so  potent  to  decrease  or  prevent  vio¬ 
lence  as  the  much  misunderstood  and  misrepresented  organized 
labor  movement  of  America.  A  greater  crowd  will  follow  a 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


45 


prize  fighter  through  the  streets  than  will  gather  to  see  a  public 
official  or  man  of  great  learning.  Individual  passions  will  find 
vent  no  matter  whether  there  are  strikes  or  industrial  peace. 
Men  who  have  led  restrained  lives  can  not  realize  the  effect  of 
red  blood  in  healthy,  energetic  workingmen.  Some  men  would 
rather  fight  than  eat.  When  war  comes  the  pacifists  are  not 
found  among  their  numbers.  It  was  to  the  credit  of  the  United 
States  that  in  the  Great  War  the  young  men  of  our  country 
were  fighters.  Take  the  right  to  fight  for  what  is  good  away 
from  our  people  and  we  will  become  a  nation  of  pacifists.  Look 
at  China,  a  nation  of  pacifists.  There  are  no  strikes  in  China. 
Wages  are  very  low,  as  they  are  fixed  to  suit  the  employer. 
The  worker  has  nothing  to  say  about  them. 

Labor  men  find  that  in  most  cases  those  who  oppose  the 
activities  of  the  trade-unions  do  not  appreciate  that  the  worker 
is  just  as  anxious  for  a  better  economic  life  as  any  other 
citizen  who  may  or  may  not  have  to  work. 

Only  those  who  have  worked  in  the  mines  know  the  hard¬ 
ships  endured  by  the  miners.  I  would  venture  to  say  that  if 
each  Senator  of  the  United  States  would  become  a  miner  for 
a  year  he  would  not  only  come  out  strongly  in  favor  of  their 
strikes,  but  would  place  the  blame  for  the  walkout  where  it 
belonged — on  the  coal  operators. 

WHAT  STRIKES  HAVE  COST  THE  MINERS1 

Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie,  who  seems  hungry  for  world-wide 
peace,  might  well  devote  a  few  of  his  millions  to  the  promotion 
of  industrial  peace  at  home,  suggests  the  Des  Moines  Register 
and  Leader ,  calling  attention  to  the  published  figures  showing 
that  in  the  past  eleven  years  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  have  paid  over  $8,000,000  in  strike  benefits.  This 
“amazing  aggregate,”  vouched  for  by  no  less  an  authority  than 
Mr.  Thomas  L.  Lewis,  who  recently  retired  from  the  presidency 
of  the  Mine  Workers,  “represents  only  a  small  portion  of  the 
cost  of  miners’  strikes,”  continues  the  Des  Moines  paper;  “the 
loss  to  industry  amounts  to  vastly  more  than  that,  and  the  loss 
to  the  country  at  large  is  beyond  computation.”  It  was  in  ad- 

1  Literary  Digest.  42:295-6.  February  18,  1911. 


46 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


vising  his  associates  against  continuing  a  pending  strike,  notes 
the  Augusta  Chronicle,  that  President  Lewis  reminded  them  of 
the  large  cost  of  former  troubles.  These  are  his  figures: 


1900  .  $144,462.50 

1901  .  202,202.71 

1902  .  1*834,506.53 

1903  .  301,922.44 

1904  .  1,065,435-47 

1905  .  753,626.02 

1906  .  805,599.92 

1907  .  105,045.57 

1908  .  744,897.19 

1909  .  600,267.39 

1910  . .  1,532,020.42 


Total  . $8,089,986. 1 6 

These  sums  were  contributed  from  their  daily  wages  by 
miners  who  were  working,  to  support  others  who  were  on 
strike,  The  Chronicle  reminds  us,  and  it  goes  on  to  say  a  word 
about  the  cost  and  profit  of  strikes : 

‘‘The  miners  have  gained  concessions,  consisting  in  increased  wages 
and  improved  conditions,  during  the  past  ten  years,  by  striking.  It  is 
probable  that  they  have  gained  more  than  has  any  other  class  of  or¬ 
ganized  labor  by  that  process,  but  it  would  be  interesting  to  know  just 
how  the  concessions  they  have  gained  check  against  the  cost  of  the 
methods  used  in  gaining  them.  It  would  probably  be  found  that  the 
strikers  paid  pretty  dearly  for  what  they  got. 

“The  outlay  in  strike  benetfis  does  not  include  the  loss  in  time  and 
wages,  the  suffering  and  hardships,  the  long  periods  of  idleness,  fre¬ 
quently  in  midwinter,  endured  by  the  miners,  most  of  whom  are  very 
poor.  Strikes  as  a  rule  are  unprofitable.  Most  of  the  unions  have 
abandoned  them,  except  as  last  resorts,  and  investigation  would  perhaps 
demonstrate  the  fact  that  the  United  Mine  Workers,  noted  for  their 
big  and  lengthy  strikes,  have  obtained  more  through  negotiation  than 
through  strikes. 

“This  is  true  with  nearly  every  body  of  workmen.  They  have  found 
strikes  to  be  very  expensive  affairs,  and  diplomacy  much  less  expensie 
and  far  more  effective.” 


THE  STRIKE  BALANCE  SHEET1 

There  can  be  no  authentic  statement  of  the  moral  and 
economic  profits  and  losses  of  the  strikers  and  the  public  in 
the  present  unusual  strike  epidemic,  and  more’s  the  pity.  Some 
things  might  be  settled  once  for  all  if  unions,  lawmakers,  courts 
and  all  concerned  could  be  confronted  with  the  necessity  of 
showing  the  soundness  and  utility  of  their  policies,  or  going 
into  bankruptcy,  like  insolvents  among  partnerships  and  cor¬ 
porations.  It  is  practicable,  however,  to  put  together  the  profits 
and  losses  of  individual  strikes  and  to  ask  whether  they  pay. 


1  New  York  Time3,  April  18,  1920. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


47 


Governor  Allen  says  that  in  thirty-three  months  there  was 
an  average  of  eleven  strikes  a  month  in  Kansas.  The  miners 
lost  wages  of  $1,800,000  and  expended  $157,000  in  union  dues 
and  fines.  The  credit  against  this  debit  was  $778.84.  Only 
the  details  are  new.  It  is  an  old  record  that  the  strike  method 
of  righting  labor’s  wrongs  is  financially  expensive,  but  there  is 
a  moral  credit  on  the  public’s  balance  sheet,  through  the  es¬ 
tablishment  of  a  method  of  arriving  at  justice  in  industrial  re¬ 
lations  which  never  could  have  been  had  if  the  miners  had  not 
put  themselves  so  helplessly  in  the  wrong.  The  Kansas  strikers 
demanded  recognition  for  themselves,  but  refused  to  recognize 
the  industrial  court  of  the  state,  because,  they  said,  it  “was 
founded  to  enslave  the  workingman.”  The  first  decision  of  this 
court  was  to  order  an  advance  of  wages  of  J1/ 2  cents  an  hour 
against  an  offer  of  a  2-cent  increase. 

The  current  railway  strike  and  the  recent  coal  strike,  it  is 
estimated,  have  added  $300,000,000  to  the  deficit  in  the  earn¬ 
ings  of  the  railways  for  which  the  government  is  responsible, 
which  the  taxpayers  must  make  good.  That  is  only  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  a  statement  of  the  losses  of  the  public,  and  the  loss 
in  wages  by  the  strikers  in  this  neighborhood  alone  amounts 
to  scores  of  millions.  If  they  had  gained  instead  of  lost  their 
strike,  it  would  have  taken  the  increase  of  many  months’  earn¬ 
ings  to  put  the  strikers  where  they  were  before  they  struck. 
But,  as  in  Kansas,  the  moral  losses  to  the  unions  are  the  pub¬ 
lic  profits  against  the  incoveniences  of  the  strike.  These  strikes 
on  a  national  scale  are  “outlaw”  strikes,  on  the  unions’  own 
statements.  They  are  “mob  movements,”  in  the  words  of  one 
union  president,  and  there  should  be  “no  compromise  with  the 
insurgents.”  The  unionists  must  see  that  the  enemy  has  in¬ 
flicted  a  great  loss  on  them.  This  poison  in  the  union  vitals 
will  be  fatal  unless  the  antidote  of  union  descipline  is  ad¬ 
ministered  forthwith.  The  danger  is  recognized,  but  the  remedy 
is  withheld.  So  far  as  known,  no  outlaw  has  been  expelled 
from  union  membership. 

When  these  labor  movements  are  viewed  in  the  mass  in¬ 
stead  of  detail  the  debits  to  the  public  and  the  strikers  are 
amazing.  A  cable  message  to  The  Times  last  week  declared 
that  there  were  pending  in  England  demands  of  increases  of 
wages  totaling  nearly  a  half  billion  dollars  at  the  normal  rate 
of  exchange.  How  can  the  strikers  hope  to  extract  this  sum 


48 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


from  industry  from  which  they  have  taken  34,000,000  work 
days,  or  three  times  as  many  as  in  1913,  and  when  the  out¬ 
put  per  man  who  worked  is  demonstrably  below  easy  capacity? 
The  cable  brings  from  France  a  statement  that  the  boon  of 
the  eight-hour  day  to  the  workers  has  resulted  in  such  a  re¬ 
duction  of  output,  by  various  percentages  from  20  per  cent, 
to  50  per  cent.,  that  it  is  not  possible  to  employ  enough  more 
men  to  maintain  production.  The  Dominion  reports  that  there 
was  a  strike  for  each  working  day  in  1919,  and  that  the  work 
days  lost  numbered  3,942,189,  against  the  previous  maximum 
of  2,046,650.  There  has  been  the  same  loss  of  efficiency  among 
the  workers  and  of  decrease  in  production  in  this  country. 
How  can  labor  fail  to  see  that  the  starvation  of  industry 
reacts  against  sluggards  and  strikers  by  lessening  the  amount  of 
goods  to  be  divided,  and  making  it  impossible  for  the  distri¬ 
bution  to  the  individual  to  be  increased?  There  is  no  more 
dangerous  shortage  than  of  coal,  and  yet  the  miners  made 
holidays  of  the  first  four  days  of  the  month.  In  Pennsylvania 
in  the  metal  trades  alone  in  1919  there  was  a  loss  of  $4,420,434 
in  wages  and  of  1,723,561  working  days.  The  loss  of  output 
was  more  serious,  but  it  is  not  known.  In  1919  an  incomplete 
list  tabulated  losses  of  wages  by  strikes  of  $723,478,300,  and  of 
industrial  losses,  not  labor’s,  of  $1,266,357,450.  This  at  a  time 
of  the  highest  wages  and  most  extravagant  expenditures  by 
workers  ever  known.  The  moral  losses  to  labor  are  inesti¬ 
mable. 


EXPENSIVE  IDLENESS1 

Strikes  and  lockouts  in  1919  cost  the  United  States  143,- 
850,000  days  of  production.  To  make  up  for  this  loss  4,800,000 
men  would  have  to  work  a  month.  A  plant  employing  1,000 
workers  would  be  able  to  offset  this  loss  in  about  450  years. 

The  direct  loss  of  wages  was  close  to  a  billion.  Indirectly, 
through  restriction  of  supply  and  the  consequent  higher  prices, 
this  idleness  is  to  be  charged  with  an  additional  indeterminate 
sum  of  no  mean  proportions. 

The  labor  disturbances  of  the  past  year  were  in  part  the  re¬ 
sult  of  grievances  which  had  arisen  during  the  war.  The  first 

1  Editorial,  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer,  July  7,  1920. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


49 


six  months  of  the  American  participation  had  been  marked  by 
an  unusual  amount  of  strife.  A  rigorous  government  policy  and 
appeals  to  labor  on  patriotic  grounds  kept  the  year  1918  singu¬ 
larly  free  from  serious  disputes.  But  the  signing  of  the 
armistice  and  the  loss  of  morale  that  came  with  the  end  of 
hostilities  threw  into  the  year  1919  nine  of  the  most  serious 
labor  disputes  the  country  has  ever  experienced. 

From  this  latest  compilation  of  strike  statistics  there 
emerges  one  hopeful  sign  for  the  future.  Violence  in  the  dis¬ 
turbances  is  diminishing.  It  is  attributed  by  the  bureau  of 
labor  to  the  fact  that  fewer  employers  have  tried  to  operate 
their  plants  by  employing  strike  breakers.  The  fact  of  prohibi¬ 
tion  has  also  unquestionably  been  an  important  influence. 

We  cannot  afford  strikes  even  if  they  are  peaceful.  The 
country  is  now  paying  in  part  in  the  high  costs  of  food,  of 
clothing  and  of  house  rent  for  the  strikes  and  lockouts  of  last 
year.  Some  means  must  be  found  for  bringing  the  employers 
and  the  employed  together  before  tremendous  losses  are  in¬ 
curred  by  both.  The  zone  of  conflict  can  be  greatly  reduced  if 
the  human  side  of  the  problem  is  not  forgotten. 

Despite  the  complex  machinery  for  the  settlement  of  dis¬ 
putes,  the  national  industrial  conference  board  has  found  that 
more  strikes  are  ended  through  private  conferences  than  in 
any  other  way.  The  president’s  recent  industrial  commis¬ 
sion  made  recommendations  directed  toward  the  same  end. 

WHAT  THESE  STRIKES  COST  YOU  IN 

MONEY1 

This  has  been  the  greatest  strike  year  in  the  history  of  the 
United  States.  During  the  twelve  months  following  Armistice 
there  were  more  than  three  times  as  many  strikes  as  in  the 
same  period  four  years  earlier.  *  *  * 

A  strike  is  like  a  pebble  thrown  into  a  pool  of  water.  The 
loss  it  causes  in  wages  to  the  strikers  and  in  profits  to  their 
employers  is  only  the  first  small  circle  in  the  series  of  larger 
and  larger  ones,  which  spread  and  widen  until  they  reach  the 
uttermost  boundaries  of  the  pool. 

It  is  impossible  for  any  strike  to  take  place  in  modern  in¬ 
dustry  without  causing  these  innumerable  and  widening  circles 

J  Roger  W.  Babson.  American  Magazine.  89:9.  February,  1920. 


50 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


of  loss.  In  the  two  months  mentioned — August  and  Septem¬ 
ber,  1919 — I  have  records  of  strikes  involving  ninety  different 
trades. 

Not  only  did  the  strikers  lose  their  wages  and  the  employers 
lose  their  profits,  but  the  country  did  not  get  the  goods  which 
should  have  been  produced.  Of  course,  we  the  consumers,  kept 
the  money  we  should  have  paid  for  these  goods  if  they  had 
been  made.  But  not  for  long!  Because  we  had  to  pay  more 
for  what  we  did  get  because  of  the  scarcity. 

To  give  you  some  idea  of  what  this  loss  was — and  remem¬ 
ber  this  is  only  the  second  of  those  circles  of  loss — here  is  a 
table  showing  the  approximate  number  of  employees  affect¬ 
ed  in  some  of  the  strikes  and  the  average  number  of  days  of 
idleness  resulting  (The  steel  strike  is  not  included,  although 
it  began  in  September.)  : 


Industries 

Number  of 
Employees 
Affected 

Days 

Lost 

Metal  trades  . 

49,150 

1,081,300 

Shipbuilding  . 

50,000 

1,100,000 

Coal  mining  . 

10,000 

220,000 

Textiles  . 

50,250 

1,105,500 

Lumber  . 

2,000 

16,000 

44,000 

Clothing  . 

352,000 

Hats  . 

3,250 

71,500 

Shoes  . 

3,5oo 

77,000 

Railroads  . . 

i,75o 

38,500 

Foods  . 

i,55o 

34,100 

Public  Service  . 

2,550 

56,100 

Building  Trades  . 

45,ooo 

990,000 

Retail  coal  . 

500 

1 1,000 

Water  transportation  . . 

1,200 

26,400 

Paper  . 

750 

16,500 

Rubber  . 

4,000 

88,000 

Laundries  . 

250 

5,5oo 

Tobacco  . 

4,250 

93,5oo 

Publishing  . 

1,200 

26,400 

Just  to  show  you  the  effect  of  this  idleness,  here  are  figures 
showing  the  loss  in  production  in  a  few  of  the  above  indus¬ 
tries  during  only  nine  months : 


Industries 
Coal  mining  . 

Retail  coal  . . 

Hats  . 

Shoes  . 

Garment  trade 
Lumber  . 


Amount  of  Production  Lost 

i»7Si»740  tons  bituminous 
1,048,740  tons  anthracite 
616,300  tons  undelivered 
88,000  machine-made  women’s  hats 
1,768,800  pairs  men’s 
15,886,500  men’s  shirts 
19,183,800  pairs  overalls 
8,294,000  board  feet 


This  decrease  in  production  directly  affects  you  in  two  ways : 
Because  of  it  you  actually  have  less — and  you  pay  more  for 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


5i 


what  you  do  have.  But  for  the  strikes  there  would  have  been 
about  two  million  more  pairs  of  men’s  shoes,  for  example,  an 
item  not  to  be  lightly  regarded. 

But  here  is  another  feature  of  the  situation  which  must  be 
taken  into  account:  There  were  threatened  strikes  and  partial 
cessations  of  work  which  did  not  reach  the  stage  of  an  actual 
walkout.  This  is  forcibly  illustrated  by  a  report  of  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  Labor  for  a  previous  year.  During  a  period  when  there 
were  281  actual  strikes,  he  refers  to  212  additional  controversies. 
These  controversies  closely  parallel  the  strikes  themselves. 
And  while  they  do  not  cause  as  great  a  loss  in  production  they 
do  very  materially  reduce  the  output.  This  must  not  be  omit¬ 
ted  in  calculating  the  direct  loss. 

All  of  these  direct  losses,  however,  form  only  the  smallest 
of  the  circles  which  widen  around  a  strike.  Here  is  another 
one:  If  a  strike  takes  place  in  an  industry,  it  reacts  on  every 
other  industry  that  contributes  in  any  way  to  it. 

For  instance,  a  strike  in  the  garment  trades  reacts  on  the 
textile  mills — the  makers  of  silks,  velvets,  woolens,  cotton 
fabrics  may  be  forced  to  quit  work. 

A  strike  in  the  shoe  factories  reaches  back  to  the  leather 
workers,  the  tanneries,  the  makers  of  chemicals,  the  shops 
where  shoe  machinery  is  manufactured.  A  printing  strike  re¬ 
acts  on  the  paper-mill  workers  and  the  ink  makers.  A  build¬ 
ing  strike  cuts  down  the  work  for  countless  other  employ¬ 
ees  in  a  score  of  trades — metal  workers,  lumber  producers, 
employees  in  cement  mills,  in  brick  yards,  in  tool  factories. 

For  every  day  of  idleness  caused  in  a  plant  that  is  on  strike, 
there  is  another  day  of  idleness  caused  by  the  resulting  loss  of 
work  to  other  men  and  women  who  would  normally  be  busy 
making  materials  to  be  used  in  that  plant.  And  their  loss  is  not 
made  up,  even  though  the  strikers  win. 

And  a  strike  involves  not  only  the  direct  producers  of  these 
materials,  but  every  person  concerned  in  selling  them  and  in 
transporting  them.  The  loss  is  felt  at  every  step. 

♦  This  is  the  backward  reaction  of  a  strike.  But  it  does  not 
complete  the  story,  by  any  means.  There  is  also  what  we  may 
call  the  forward  reaction.  For  example,  a  strike  in  the  textile 
mills  affects  every  industry  which  must  have  these  textiles  in 
order  to  continue.  It  slows  up  the  garment  trades.  It  may 
cause  some  of  these  shops  to  close,  throwing  their  own  work- 


52 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


ers  out  of  employment.  Not  only  that,  but  it  increases  the  cost 
of  all  textiles,  even  those  already  manufactured,  because  the 
supply  is  reduced.  This  is  immediately  reflected  in  the  in¬ 
creased  price  of  clothing. 

The  cost  of  a  serious  coal  strike  is  almost  beyond  computa¬ 
tion.  Practically  every  industry  in  the  country  pays  part  of 
the  price.  If  plants  are  shut  down  for  lack  of  fuel,  every 
worker  in  those  plants  can  charge  the  coal  strike  with  so  many 
days’  wages,  his  wages.  It  has  cost  him  a  new  pair  of  shoes, 
or  a  new  suit,  or  a  sack  of  flour,  in  addition  to  making  his 
own  winter  supply  of  coal  scantier  and  more  expensive. 

You  might  think  that  a  street-car  strike  would  not  have  this 
particular  reaction,  but  just  think  it  over.  Take  a  subway 
strike  in  New  York  City,  for  instance:  Hundreds  of  thousands 
of  workers  are  unable  to  reach  their  shops,  or  stores,  or  offices. 
They  may  lose  only  an  hour  or  two,  or  they  may  lose  a  whole 

day  of  work.  And  lost  work  is  lost  money!  For  work  means 

production.  And  reduced  production  inevitably  means  increased 
cost  of  living. 

For  example,  here  is  one  of  many  outside  losses  caused  by 
the  printing  strike  in  New  York  City:  Some  of  the  shops 
closed  had  a  large  business  in  printing  catalogues  for  com¬ 
mercial  firms.  It  is  the  custom  of  some  of  these  firms  to  de¬ 

pend  almost  wholly  on  these  catalogues  to  sell  their  goods. 

The  whole  manufacturing  program  of  hundreds  of  these 
concerns  was  held  up  because  they  could  not  get  out  their  cata¬ 
logues.  It  is  estimated  that  these  firms  employ  over  500,000 
people,  and  indirectly  give  work  to  1,000,000  others.  Thus,  the 
strike  of  only  a  few  thousand  men  in  one  industry  affected 
1,500,000  in  other  lines  of  production.  And  remember  that 
back  of  this  1,500,000  are  still  more  men  and  women  whose  work 
and  earnings  suffered. 

It  is  these  indirect  losses  which  make  the  cost  of  strikes 
so  tremendous.  They  go  out  in  endless  ramifications,  which 
finally  reach  into  the  pockets  of  practically  every  one  of  us. 
Everybody  has  some  loss  to  make  up  because  of  them.  And 
when  everybody  starts  to  make  up  losses,  the  level  of  all  costs 
rises. 

Take  the  harbor  strike  in  New  York  City  in  October: 
perishable  food,  which  could  not  be  delivered,  and  which  there¬ 
fore  spoiled,  was  a  total  loss  to  the  shippers,  or  th-e  consignees, 
as  the  case  might  be. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


53 


Take  the  harbor  strike  in  New  York  City  in  October: 
Perishable  food,  which  could  not  be  delivered,  and  which 
therefore  spoiled,  was  a  total  loss  to  the  shippers,  or  the  con¬ 
signees,  as  the  case  might  be. 

In  the  third  week  of  this  strike,  the  shipping  authorities 
estimated  that  it  was  costing  $1,500,000  a  day!  And  this  was 
aside  from  the  expense  of  maintenance  and  interference  with 
other  branches  of  business.  There  were  625  vessels  tied  up 
in  the  port  of  New  York.  Many  of  these  idle  ships,  tied  up 
to  the  docks,  were  costing  their  owners  from  $300  to  $1,000 
a  day  for  dock  rental.  This  was  in  addition  to  money  paid 
out  for  idle  officers  and  crews,  and  the  other  expenses  which 
went  right  on,  without  any  income  to  offset  them. 

Here  is  just  one  curious  instance  of  the  way  strikes  affect 
you  in  ways  you  do  not  suspect:  Because  of  the  tie-up  of 
shipping,  the  supply  of  quinine  ran  short,  and  there  was 
great,  anxiety  over  this  shortage  in  case  the  influenza  epi¬ 
demic  broke  out  again.  Many  other  drugs  were  scarce  for 
the  same  reason,  and  higher  prices  for  them  were  predicted. 
Over  $3,000,000  worth  of  essential  oils  were  held  up,  and 
many  of  them  became  very  scarce. 

Building  materials  were  delayed,  with  the  result  that  con¬ 
tractors  lost  money,  workmen  were  idle,  and  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  new  houses,  stores,  and  offices — the  only  solution  of 
the  high-rent  problem — was  held  back. 

As  another  illustration  of  how  these  circles  of  loss  widen 
out,  let  us  take  the  police  strike  in  Boston: 

The  striking  police  force  numbered  about  1,200,  men.  If 
we  suppose  that  these  policemen  have  families,  taking  the 
usual  average  of  five  members,  there  were  6,000  persons 
directly  affected  in  that  one  group.  But  this  is  only  a  starter. 
In  the  second  circle,  those  indirectly  affected,  we  find  the 
5,000  state  guardsmen  who  were  called  out  to  take  the  places 
of  the  policemen. 

Most  of  the  guardsmen  have  dependents  of  their  own. 
But  even  suppose  that  the  employers  of  these  men  continued 
to  pay  them  while  they  were  on  duty  in  Boston,  thus  pre¬ 
venting  their  families  from  suffering.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
many  of  the  men  did  lose  work  or  pay,  and  a  fund  of  around 
$1,000,000  was  raised  by  public  subscription  to  care  for  those 
dependent  on  them. 


54 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


But  in  any  case,  their  work  was  lost.  Many  employers 
paid  men  and  received  nothing  in  return.  The  men  who  had 
not  been  employed  lost  what  they  might  have  earned.  And 
the  people  as  a  whole  were  deprived  of  what  these  men 
would  have  produced. 

Even  this  does  not  complete  the  cost  account.  We  have 
still  to  reckon  the  merchants  and  other  business  concerns 
affected  by  the  absence  of  protection  during  the  days  of  riot¬ 
ing.  There  was  actual  loss  of  property;  and  there  was  an 
even  greater  loss  due  to  the  disorganization  of  the  whole 
population.  That  one  strike  has  cost  the  people  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  at  least  several  million  dollars. 


WHERE  DO  THE  PEOPLE  COME  IN1 

New  York  City’s  “milk  strike”  is  ended.  The  milk  distri¬ 
buters  have  capitulated.  The  farmers  are  to  get  a  cent  more  a 
quart  for  their  milk  for  the  next  six  months.  Ultimately,  of 
course,  the  public  will  pay  the  extra  cent.  For  that  is  its  chief 
function  and  privilege  as  “ultimate  consumer.” 

For  several  weeks  now  the  people  of  New  York  and  sur¬ 
rounding  towns  have  been  sadly  inconvenienced  by  the  stop¬ 
page  of  a  good  share  of  their  usual  milk  supply.  The  in- 
covenience  has  among  the  poor — who  are  wont  to  get  the 
heaviest  blows  from  any  dislocation  of  industrial  and  com¬ 
mercial  processes — risen  to  the  point  of  actual  suffering. 

It  was  not  a  “strike”  at  all.  It  was  a  refusal  on  the  part 
of  an  organized  group  of  milk  producers  to  sell  their  milk  ex¬ 
cept  at  an  advanced  price.  This  action  met  head-on  the  counter 
refusal  of  the  companies  who  distribute  the  milk  from  door 
to  door  to  pay  the  increased  price.  There  are  three  great  milk 
companies  in  New  York  that  dominate  the  distributing  business. 
It  does  not  appear,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  that  they  acted 
in  combination  against  the  demands  of  the  farmers.  But  for 
several  weeks  they  continued  to  take  the  same  action ;  and  when 
one  company  finally  yielded,  the  others  did  the  same  im¬ 
mediately.  They  were  in  effect  allies,  even  tho  there  were  no 
articles  of  agreement  between  them. 

The  public  stood  by,  helpless,  and  suffered  while  two 
groups  in  the  community  fought  out  their  commercial  dif- 


1  Independent.  88:139.  October  23,  1916. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


55 


ferences.  The  situation  was  precisely  similar  to  that  which  oc¬ 
curs  when  an  industrial  strike  takes  place,  with  business  man 
and  farmer  taking  the  place  of  employer  and  workingman. 

In  both  cases  the  method  of  settling  the  dispute  is  intol¬ 
erable. 

The  interests  of  no  group  in  the  community  are  more  im¬ 
portant  than  the  public  interest.  The  well-being  of  all  should 
never  be  permitted  to  suffer  because  some  special  portion  of 
the  whole  is  seeking  its  own  well-being  in  its  own  way.  The 
public  should  never  be  put  in  the  position  of  the  “innocent  by¬ 
stander”  at  a  street  fight,  who  often  receives  the  severest  in¬ 
juries. 

The  welfare  of  the  people  is  paramount.  Of  course,  farm¬ 
ers  are  people  as  well  as  tillers  of  the  soil  and  herders  of 
cattle.  Of  course,  also — tho  it  takes  a  little  more  temerity  to 
assert  it — the  managers  and  stockholders  of  milk  companies  are 
people  as  well  as  distributers  of  a  necessity  of  life.  So  their 
welfare  cannot  be  ignored,  if  we  would.  But,  after  all,  there 
are  more  people  who  are  consumers  of  milk  than  people  who 
produce  it  and  distribute  it.  It  is  their  welfare  that  must  be 
the  community’s  first  and  highest  thought. 

The  problem,  then,  is  to  find  some  method  of  settling  dis¬ 
putes  between  producers  and  distributers  of  the  necessaries  of 
life  that  does  not  cause  the  public  inconvenience  and  suffering. 
The  community,  whether  it  be  the  city,  the  state,  or  the  nation, 
must  compel  the  disputants  to  settle  their  differences  peace¬ 
ably.  It  must  make  it  its  business  to  see  that  the  producer  ob¬ 
tains  justice  while  the  distributer  does  not  suffer  injustice, 
just  as  it  must  see  in  the  industrial  field  that  the  workingman 
obtains  justice  while  the  employer  does  not  suffer  injustice. 


BRIEF  EXCERPTS 

The  public  has  no  rights  which  are  superior  to  the  toiler’s 
right  to  live  and  to  his  right  to  defend  himself  against  op¬ 
pression. — Samuel  Gompers,  in  a  statement,  June  6,  1920. 

In  any  basic  industry,  when  labor  and  capital  are  at  strife, 
it  is  not  a  duel  but  a  nation-wide  war,  in  which  the  public 
has  the  predominant  interest. — New  York  Times  ( editorial )  June 
20,  1920. 

It  is  to  me  a  monstrous  thought  that  capital  and  labor 


56 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


can  without  let  or  hindrance  starve  and  freeze  and  ruin  the 
people  in  a  struggle  for  supremacy. — Senator  Charles  E. 
Townsend.  Congressional  Record,  December  17,  1919. 

When  men  strike  on  a  job  they  devote  their  minds  to 
doing  as  little  as  possible  in  a  day  and  doing  that  little  as 
badly  as  ingenuity  will  devise.  Almost  any  employer  pre¬ 
fers  an  out  and  out  strike  with  rioting  and  violence  to  the 
insidious  crippling  of  the  “strike  on  the  job.” — John  Leitch. 
Man  to  Man,  p.  17. 

An  incomplete  list  of  direct  losses  due  to  strikes  in  1919 
places  the  cost  to  labor  in  wages  at  nearly  $765,000,000  and 
to  industry  at  more  than  one  and  one-quarter  billion  dollars, 
Francis  H.  Sisson,  vice  president  of  the  Guaranty  Trust  Co. 
of  New  York,  told  the  Silver  jubilee  convention  of  the  na¬ 
tional  association  of  manufacturers  today. — Cleveland  Plain 
Dealer,  May  19,  1920. 

The  evil  possibilities  of  the  boycott  appear  most  plainly 
when  we  consider  the  boycott  sometimes  maintained  by  em¬ 
ployers  against  the  employment  of  workmen  who  have  made 
themselves  obnoxious  by  activity  in  strikes  or  in  the  organi¬ 
zation  of  new  unions.  This  form  of  boycotting  is  usually 
called  blacklisting. — Adams  and  Sumner.  Labor  Problems, 
p.  200. 

I  feel  it  is  my  duty  in  the  public  interest  to  declare  that 
any  attempt  to  carry  out  the  purpose  of  the  strike  [Bitumin¬ 
ous  coal  strike  of  1919]  and  thus  to  paralyze  the  industry  of 
the  country,  with  the  consequent  suffering  and  distress  of  all 
our  people,  must  be  considered  a  grave  moral  and  legal  wrong 
against  the  government  and  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
— Statement  by  President  Wilson.  October  25,  1919. 

The  essence  of  the  boycott  is  the  intent  to  injure.  This 
injury  may  be  inflicted  for  mere  revenge,  or  it  may  be  in¬ 
flicted  with  the  ultimate  purpose  of  accomplishing  the  most 
laudable  and  desirable  improvement  in  the  conditions  of  em¬ 
ployment.  But  in  either  case,  say  the  courts,  the  primary 
object  is  injury,  the  intent  consequently  malicious,  and  the 
combination  in  turn  illegal. — Adams  and  Sumner.  Labor  Prob¬ 
lems.  (8th  edition )  p.  198. 

The  cost  of  this  [Switchmen’s]  strike,  short  as  it  has 
been,  has  been  enormous.  It  cut  deeply  into  railroad  earn¬ 
ings  and  thereby  will  cost  the  government  millions  of  dol- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


57 


lars.  Hundreds  of  factories  and  mills  were  forced  to  close 
down  for  want  of  materials  and  thousands  of  workmen  were 
thereby  made  idle.  The  strike  has  been  all  loss  and  no  gain. 
The  switchmen  have  lost  what  it  will  take  years  to  regain, 
public  confidence. — Buffalo  Evening  News.  April  19,  1920. 

The  “walking  delegate”  is  the  business  agent  of  local 
unions  in  the  building  trades.  He  goes  about  from  building 
to  building  to  see  that  union  rules  are  not  being  violated  by 
contractors,  and  has  power  to  call  instant  strikes  on  his 
own  initiative.  This  concentration  of  power  in  the  hands  of 
the  “walking  delegate,”  with  its  opportunities  for  graft,  has 
earned  him  much  public  reproach. — Cyclopedia  of  American 
Government,  vol.  3,  p.  638. 

Since  the  war  we  have  had  a  perfect  carnival  of  strikes 
in  this  country,  some  of  them  of  huge  dimensions,  nearly 
all  of  them  attended  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  by  violence 
and  the  destruction  of  property,  and  every  one  of  them  men¬ 
acing,  more  or  less  seriously,  every  American  citizen  desir¬ 
ing  to  continue  to  work  or  to  take  the  place  of  some  of 
these  men. — Senator  Charles  S.  Thomas.  Congressional  Rec¬ 
ord,  December  18,  1919. 

The  charge  that  all  but  four  newspapers  in  the  United 
States  are  controlled  by  the  International  Typographical 
Union  and  that  through  its  local  chapters  the  union  maintains 
a  censorship  over  news  unfavorable  to  labor  was  placed  sud¬ 
denly  today  before  the  Senate  committee  investigating  the 
shortage  of  newsprint  paper.  The  man  who  made  this  start¬ 
ling  accusation  was  Earl  J.  McCone,  General  Manager  of  the 
Charles  A.  Finnigan  Company  of  Buffalo,  which  controls 
The  Buffalo  Commercial  and  the  Hall-Richter  Paper  Com¬ 
pany. — New  York  Times.  May  5,  1920. 

“We  are  out  to  stay  until  we  get  a  readjustment  in  wages. 
We  have  been  back  at  work  for  ten  days  and  no  action  has 
been  taken  by  the  Labor  board  relative  to  our  grievances.” 
So  says  the  local  leader  of  the  strikers.  “We  insist  that  we 
must  have  more  money  and  will  not  work  until  the  railroads 
see  fit  to  give  it  to  us.”  The  need  of  adjustment  of  railroad 
wages  was  in  evidence  before  the  first  strike.  The  strikers 
lost  eleven  days’  pay  then.  Now  they  propose  to  lose  more 
pay  rather  than  continue  to  work  for  what  they  are  getting. 
If  they  must  have  more  money,  how  is  it  that  they  can  af- 


58 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


ford  thus  frequently  to  suspend  work? — Buffalo  Times.  May  i, 
1920. 

The  law  which  we  passed  in  the  Kansas  Legislature  was 
not  a  law  against  union  labor,  and  the  strike  which  was 
brought  on  which  caused  such  horrible  economic  waste  was 
not  altogether  the  fault  of  union  labor;  that  the  coal  oper¬ 
ators,  the  men  who  owned  the  mines  were  equally  guilty 
with  the  miners.  I  have  seen  industrial  controversy  waged 
in  that  territory  for  twenty-five  years,  and  in  all  the  indus¬ 
trial  controversies  I  have  witnessed  I  have  never  yet  heard 
from  either  side  one  expression  of  comradely  brotherhood, 
never. — Gov.  Henry  J.  Allen.  Law  and  Labor.  2:85.  April , 
1920. 

Fred  G.  Biedenkapp,  organizer  for  the  One  Big  Union 
and  secretary-treasurer  of  the  Brotherhood  of  MetaT  Work¬ 
ers,  said  the  other  day: 

“The  hour  draws  near  for  the  revolution.  Already  are 
2,000,000  organized  into  the  One  Big  Union  which  shall  ac¬ 
complish  the  revolution.  Daily  our  numbers  grow  as  un¬ 
successful  strike  follows  unsuccessful  strike.  Therefore  we 
of  the  vision  encourage  strikes — that  they  may  fail.”  Here 
is  a  candid  confession  of  rejoicing  over  the  failure  of  strikes 
which  these  intriguers  “of  the  vision”  themselves  have  pro¬ 
voked! — Buffalo  Currier.  May  15,  1920. 

The  proposed  [coal]  strike,  if  carried  to  its  logical  con¬ 
clusion,  will  paralyze  transportation  and  industry.  It  will 
deprive  unnumbered  thousands  of  men  who  are  making  no 
complaint  about  their  employment  of  their  right  to  earn  a 
livelihood  for  themselves  and  their  families,  will  put  cities 
in  darkness,  and,  if  continued  only  for  a  few  days,  will  bring 
cold  and  hunger  to  millions  of  our  people;  if  continued  for 
a  month,  it  will  leave  death  and  starvation  in  its  wake.  It 
would  be  a  more  deadly  attack  upon  the  life  of  the  nation 
than  an  invading  army. — Attorney  General  Palmer,  October 
27,  1919.  Law  and  Labor.  1 :  10.  December,  1919. 

News  from  all  directions  is  to  the  effect  that  the  latest 
railroad  strike  is  practically  over.  What  an  inexcusable  and 
costly  folly  it  has  been.  Think  of  the  millions  lost  in  wages, 
and  the  far  greater  losses  in  the  interruption  of  the  indus¬ 
tries,  productive  processes  and  general  business  of  the  coun¬ 
try,  the  harmful  inconveniences  and  industrial  distress! 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


59 


Then  there  is  another  item  of  loss  amounting  easily  to 
$50,000,000  in  the  reduction  of  the  revenues  of  the  railroads 
— a  loss  which  under  the  new  federal  railroad  law  must  be 
made  good  by  an  advance  of  freight  rates  to  be  paid  ulti¬ 
mately  by  the  consumers,  the  mass  of  the  people ! — Buffalo 
Currier.  April  19,  1920. 

But  the  “neutral”  in  industrial  warfare,  like  the  “neutral”  in 
international  warfare,  is  securing  a  standing  in  court.  In 
the  recent  milk  strike  in  New  York — a  strike,  be  it  observed, 
called  not  by  the  proletariat,  but  by  capitalists,  i.  e.,  farmers, 
owners  of  real  estate — an  attempt  by  capitalists  to  fix  the 
price  of  milk  by  collective  bargaining,  upon  the  ground,  in¬ 
deed,  that  the  farmer  (a  capitalist)  was  not  earning  a  “liv¬ 
ing  wage” — at  the  very  moment  that  these  capitalists  were 
practising  sabotage,  overturning  and  emptying  milk  cans  in 
the  up-state  highways,  the  babe  in  its  mother’s  arms,  depen¬ 
dent  for  its  life  upon  this  wasted  milk,  cried  out  its  neutral 
protest. — /.  H.  Cohen  in  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  of  Po¬ 
litical  Science.  7:  116.  January ,  1917. 

The  total  number  of  labor  strikers  between  the  date  of 
our  declaration  of  war  and  the  date  of  the  armistice  in  this 
country  was  2,386,285.  Now,  when  we  consider  that  the  total 
number  of  men  sent  to  France  was  2,053,347,  it  follows  that 
the  army  of  strikers  during  that  period  exceeded  the  army 
of  fighters  during  that  period  by  about  350,000  men;  and  that 
was  a  time,  Mr.  President,  when  the  energy  and  the  labor 
of  every  citizen  was  sadly  and  sorely  needed,  when  every 
impulse  of  duty  and  patriotism  combined  to  keep  the  home 
fires  burning,  that  the  boys  across  the  sea  might  need  noth¬ 
ing  essential  to  their  supreme  and  heroic  task,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  which  these  are  the  appalling  figures. — Senator  Charles  S. 
Thomas.  Congressional  Record,  December  18,  1919. 

In  the  course  of  the  argument  by  Henry  Warrum,  at¬ 
torney  for  the  defendants,  against  the  continuance  of  the  in¬ 
junction  and  the  issuance  of  an  order  compelling  the  with¬ 
drawal  of  the  strike  order,  the  Court  [Judge  Anderson,  U.  S. 
District  Court,  Indiana]  said: 

“The  restraining  order  ought  to  be  made  a  temporary 
injunction  and  a  direct  order  to  revoke  the  strike  order 
ought  to  be  added.  Of  course,  if  your  clients  don’t  like  it 
that  way,  I’ll  make  them  obey  it. 


6o 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


“There  cannot  be  an  iniperium  in  imperio  in  this  coun¬ 
try,  as  counsel  for  the  government  has  said.  The  govern¬ 
ment  is  supreme  even  over  a  labor  union,  and  superior  to  it. 

“I  think  this  strike  is  about  the  most  lawless  thing  I  have 
seen  in  this  country.  If  it  goes  on  I  think  it  is  rebellion. 
That  is  what  I  think  it  is.” — Law  and  Labor,  i :  4.  December 
1919. 

This  Republic  contains  something  like  110,000,000  men, 
women,  and  children.  The  great  city  of  New  York,  per¬ 
haps  now,  with  its  suburbs  in  New  Jersey  and  on  Long  Is¬ 
land,  the  largest  city  in  the  world,  except  it  may  be  London, 
contains  something  like  five  or  six  million  people.  Prob¬ 
ably  something  more  than  one-half  of  that  population  are 
women  and  children,  and  one-tenth  of  that  population  are 
children,  little  babies  seeking  the  milk  bottle  or  their  moth¬ 
er’s  breast — and  under  the  new  order  of  modern  women, 
under  the  new  civilization,  they  seek  their  mother’s  breasts 
almost  in  vain,  and  must  have  milk  bottles.  If  a  man  comes 
to  me  and  tells  me  that  upon  some  theory  or  other  he  has 
a  right  to  stop  the  transportation  of  milk  to  those  babies  in 
New  York,  I  tell  him  when  he  says  it  that  he  is  a  self-con¬ 
fessed  murderer  of  children. — Senator  John  Sharp  Williams. 
Congressional  Record ,  December  18,  1919. 

Hon.  Elihu  Root  in  outlining  a  Republican  policy  recently 
said: 

If  we  are  to  maintain  the  principles  of  our  government 
of  all  the  people  by  all  the  people,  we  must  apply  those  prin¬ 
ciples  now  to  this  situation.  If  we  are  a  self-governing  peo¬ 
ple  we  must  govern  and  not  be  governed.  We  should  not 
attempt  to  make  any  man  work  against  his  will.  We  should 
not  attempt  to  take  away  the  right  to  strike.  It  is  Labor’s 
great  protection.  But  we  should  by  law  limit  the  right  to 
strike  at  the  point  where  it  comes  in  conflict  with  the  com¬ 
munities’  higher  right  of  self-protection.  No  man  and  no 
set  of  men  can  justly  claim  the  right  to  undertake  the  per¬ 
formance  of  a  service  upon  which  the  health  and  life  of 
others  depend  and  then  to  abandon  the  service  at  will.  The 
line  between  such  a  performance  and  an  ordinary  strike 
should  be  drawn  by  law. — World’s  Work.  39:531.  April,  1920. 

This  [coal]  strike  is  an  unconscionable  and  brutal  menace 
to  the  happiness,  the  comfort,  yes,  the  lives,  of  hundreds  of 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


61 


thousands  of  American  citizens — men,  women,  and  children 
— in  no  way  a  party  to  the  existing  controversy  and  in  no 
manner  responsible,  not  even  in  the  slightest  degree,  for  the 
conditions,  actual  or  imaginary,  which  brought  about  this 
crisis.  Thus  the  strike  in  this  instance  is  an  exhibition  of 
inhuman  selfishness  which  should  awaken  the  indignation 
and  arouse  the  antagonism  of  every  right-thinking  American 
citizen.  Secondly,  this  strike,  under  the  circumstances  which 
characterized  its  inception,  and  those  attendant  upon  its  sub¬ 
sequent  conduct,  has  involved  such  an  obvious  rebellion 
against  the  law  of  the  land  and  against  the  authority  of  the 
United  States  government  that  we  may  well  take  pause  to 
consider  whether  or  not  the  seeds  of  revolution  in  this  coun¬ 
try  have  not  only  been  planted  but  that  the  harvesting  time 
is  now  at  hand. — Senator  Joseph  S.  Frelinghuysen,  Congres¬ 
sional  Record ,  December  8,  1919. 

As  a  result  of  class  legislation  in  favor  of  wageworkers, 
there  has  grown  up  in  this  country  an  inner  government. 
It  is  inside  of  the  regular  or  constitutional  government.  It 
is  not  an  invisible  government.  It  is  very  visible.  It  does 
not  operate  under  the  surface  01  behind  the  scenes.  It  is 
bold  and  open  and  very  much  aboveboard.  The  inner  gov¬ 
ernment  consists  of  combined  organized  labor,  and  it  is  a 
grave  question  if  the  inner  government  to-day  is  not  superior 
to  and  more  powerful  than  the  constitutional  government. 
The  inner  government  issues  edicts  and  makes  demands,  and 
in  the  past  they  have  largely  been  honored  by  the  constitu¬ 
tional  government.  If  this  is  to  continue  constitutional  gov¬ 
ernment  can  not  survive.  In  my  opinion,  it  is  timely  and 
opportune  to  determine  whether  or  not  this  shall  continue 
until  it  may  reach  the  point  of  the  utter  subversion  or  de¬ 
struction  of  constitutional  government.  Shall  the  inner  gov¬ 
ernment  or  the  constitutional  government  rule?  The  time 
and  the  opportunity  to  make  the  test  are  now  at  hand. — Sen¬ 
ator  Henry  L.  Myers.  Congressional  Record,  December  8,  1919. 

With  the  growth  of  large  labor  unions,  and  with  the  in¬ 
crease  in  the  resources  of  individual  employers  and  groups 
of  employers,  the  interest  of  the  public  in  these  industrial 
conflicts  became  more  vital.  It  was  soon  felt  that  in  many 
strikes  the  public  suffered  more  acutely  than  either  contest¬ 
ant.  For  instance,  during  the  recent  [1902]  coal  strike  both 


62 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


operators  and  miners  commanded  sufficient  resources  to  en¬ 
able  them  to  hold  out  almost  indefinitely,  while  the  public 
would  have  suffered  irreparable  injury  and  untold  hardship, 
had  the  strike  lasted  but  two  or  three  months  longer.  A 
strike  of  a  month’s  duration  upon  all  the  railroads  centering 
in  Chicago  would  not,  perhaps,  affect  the  bonds  and  stocks 
of  the  corporations  more  seriously  than  a  complete  failure 
of  the  crops,  and  the  workmen  themselves  could  bear  the 
strain  quite  easily.  Long  before  the  month  had  elapsed, 
however,  the  country  would  be  in  the  throes  of  a  frightful 
crisis,  and  steps  would  probably  be  taken  by  the  state  or 
national  government  to  put  an  end  to  a  contest  in  which 
the  interest  of  the  public  was  not  only  as  great  as,  but  in¬ 
finitely  greater  than  that  of  either  combatant. — John  Mitchell. 
Organized  Labor,  p.  3 37. 

The  serious  economic  waste  involved  in  marine  and  ship¬ 
yard  strikes  during  the  period  of  reconstruction  has  recently 
been  investigated  by  the  United  States  Shipping  Board. 

Since  the  1st  of  January  it  is  estimated  that  strikes  have 
cost  the  Shipping  Board  a  total  of  $37,000,000.  There  are 
included  marine  and  harbor  strikes,  longshore  strikes,  and 
shipyard  strikes.  These  have  occurred  on  the  Atlantic,  Pa¬ 
cific,  and  Gulf  coasts,  but  the  results  of  the  coal  strike  are 
not  included. 

There  are  not  included  losses  by  foreign  or  privately  op¬ 
erated  American  vessels,  nor  indirect  losses  to  the  public 
due  to  interruption  of  regular  movement  of  shipping.  Among 
such  indirect  losses  are  those  due  to  congestion  in  port,  and 
on  inland  transportation  systems,  spoilage  of  perishable  car¬ 
go,  and  delays  of  food  supplies  needed  in  this  country  and 
abroad. 

The  marine  strikes  include  that  on  New  York  Harbor 
craft,  tying  up  some  600  boats  with  approximately  16,000 
men  out  for  13  days.  A  further  marine  strike  occurred  in 
July  with  a  general  tie-up  of  shipping  on  the  Atlantic  and 
Gulf  coasts.  Some  25,000  men  were  out  for  about  three 
weeks. 

A  longshore  strike  in  New  York  during  October  involved 
40,000  to  50,000  men  for  about  30  days.  A  further  longshore 
strike  occurred  at  New  Orleans  in  the  same  month,  lasting 
31  days. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


63 


Among  the  200  strikes  in  the  shipyards  one  of  the  largest 
was  that  in  the  Northern  Pacific  district  beginning  in  Jan¬ 
uary,  lasting  for  50  days  and  involving  some  40,000  men.  A 
further  strike  occurred  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay  and  south¬ 
ern  district  in  October,  lasted  30  days  and  involved  35,000 
men.  A  strike  in  the  shipyards  in  the  New  York  district 
began  in  October,  lasted  about  30  days,  and  involved  some 
20,000  men. — Statement  issued  by  the  United  States  Shipping 
Board,  December  6,  1919. 

In  cases  where  strikes  fail  of  their  purpose,  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  with  a  constitution  providing  for  boy¬ 
cotting,  has  elaborate  and  powerful  boycotting  machinery 
available  to  each  affiliated  union  in  its  efforts  to  enforce  the 
closed  shop.  The  Federation  has  a  total  membership  [1912] 
of  nearly  2,000,000  members,  controlling  a  purchasing  power 
of  10,000,000 — over  a  tenth  of  our  entire  population.  This 
membership  is  enjoined  to  observe  all  boycotts  under  pen¬ 
alty  of  fines  or  expulsion,  and  is  divided  and  sub-divided  into 
national  trade  unions,  some  30,000  local  unions,  over  500  city 
federations,  and  some  30  state  federations.  The  500  city  fed¬ 
erations  are  local  federations  of  all  the  unions  in  a  particular 
city,  while  the  state  federations  hold  the  same  relation  to 
all  the  unions  in  a  particular  state.  Thus  the  organizers  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  of  which  there  are  about 
1400,  and  the  organizers  of  the  different  trade  unions,  can 
at  any  time  command  the  entire  organized  force  of  all  labor 
unions  in  a  city  or  all  labor  unions  in  a  state,  in  their  efforts 
to  prevent  a  local  dealer  handling  merchandise  produced  by 
an  open  shop  employer.  With  agents  in  every  trade  center 
of  the  country  and  local  federations  of  all  trades  to  act  at 
their  commands,  with  travelling  agents  going  from  city  to 
city,  and  spies  to  detect  open  shop  shipments  and  telegraph 
the  information  to  the  unions  at  the  place  of  consignment, — 
so  we  have  a  phenomenon  hitherto  unknown  in  either  demo¬ 
cratic  or  despotic  states,  with  its  branches  like  veins  through¬ 
out  our  entire  society.  When  we  reflect  on  the  utter  im¬ 
possibility  of  escaping  from  the  observation  and  tyranny  of 
this  movement  in  any  remote  section  of  the  country  where 
it  may  choose  to  pursue,  and  remember  that  it  is  largely  de¬ 
signed  and  manipulated  to  eliminate  the  non-union  worker 
from  industry,  our  feelings  change  to  alarm.  All  other  at- 


64 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


tempts  at  secret  orders  and  societies  or  the  conduct  of  or¬ 
ganized  feuds  pale  into  insignificance  before  the  ramifica¬ 
tions,  power  and  aspirations  of  this  institution.  The  idea 
staggers  the  imagination,  for  it  discloses  the  irresistible  ma¬ 
chinery  of  an  army  of  well-disciplined  men  against  which 
the  non-conformist  is  helpless. — League  for  Industrial  Rights. 
Pamphlet  entitled  “The  Closed  Shop ”  by  W.  S.  Merritt,  p.  5. 


STRIKES  AND  LOCKOUTS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  1 

1916-1918 


Year  Strikes  Lockouts  Total 

1916  3,678  108  3,786 

1917  .  4,233  126  4,359 

1918  3,181  104  3,285 


Total .  11,092  338  u,43o 


1  Monthly  Labor  Review.  8:1858.  June,  1919. 


RESULT  OF  STRIKES  AND  LOCKOUTS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES3 


In  favor  of  employers  . 

In  favor  of  employees  . 

Compromised  . 

Employees  returned  pending  arbitration 
Not  reported  . 

Total  . 


1916 

1917 

1918 

1918 

1917 

19 

724 

366 

4*7 

21 

13 

5 

733 

58i 

591 

16 

17 

15 

766 

679 

659 

1 1 

21 

17 

70 

131 

198 

3 

6 

5 

99 

142 

212 

2 

1 

21 

2,392 

1,899 

2,077 

53 

58 

63 

1  Monthly  Labor  Review.  8:1863.  June,  1919. 


STRIKES  AND  LOCKOUTS  SETTLED1 
UNITED  STATES  1901-1905 

STRIKES  LOCKOUTS 


Year 


U 

<u 

rQ 

a 


1  .A  C 


4->  £ 

a  jj 


190X  2,924  149  49  88  10  2 

1902  3,162  204  58  78  11  1 

1903  3,494  246  66  154  18  3 

1904  2,307  130  23  112  17  2 

1905  2,077  74  27  109  10  3 


Total  .  13,964  803  223  541  66  11 

Per  Cent .  100  5.75  1.6  100  12.2  2.3 


1  Twenty-first  [1906]  Annual  Report  of  the  U.  S.  Commissioner  of 
Labor,  p.  85. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


6$ 


I  have  received  from  L.  W.  Hatch,  chief  statistician  of 
the  New  York  state  industrial  commission,  the  following 
table  of  working  time  lost  in  strikes  and  lockouts  in  New 
York  State  for  the  ten  years  1906-1915  inclusive: 


WORKING  TIME  LOST  IN  STRIKES  AND  LOCKOUTS  IN 

NEW  YORK  STATE 


Year  Ended 

Number  of 

Aggregate  days 

September  30 

strikes  and  lockouts 

of  working  time  lost 

1906 

245 

1,668,281 

1907 

282 

1,724,260 

1908 

160 

396,7-25 

1909 

176 

1,061,094 

1910 

250 

5,783,394 

1911 

21 5 

2,360,092 

1912 

184 

1,512,234 

I913 

268 

7,741,247 

1914 

.  123 

1,426,1 18 

1915 

104 

868,838 

This  shows  a  total  aggregate  number  of  days  of  working 
time  lost  amounting  to  24,542,283.  If  we  assume  an  average 
of  but  $2  a  day,  this  means  a  loss  in  this  period  in  the  state 
of  New  York  in  wages  alone  of  $49,084,566.  Julius  H.  Cohen. 
Proceedings  of  the  Academy  of  Political  Science.  7:122.  Jan¬ 
uary ,  1 91 7. 


LOSSES  THROUGH  STRIKES  AND  LOCKOUTS1 
UNITED  STATES  1881-1900 

Assistance  to 

Wage  loss  to  employees  by  Loss  to 


employees 

labor  organi¬ 
zations 

employers 

Total  loss 

1881  . 

$291,149 

782,007 

$1,926,443 

$5,608,689 

1882  . 

4,381,476 

15,494,056 

1883  . 

563,486 

4,993,124 

12,900,302 

1884  . 

721,898 

4,033,920 

13,843,945 

1885  . 

555,315 

4,844,370 

16,964,106 

1886  . 

1,671,582 

14,307,306 

35,252,399 

1887  . 

1,277,400 

1,838,399 

9,518,231 

31,589,865 

1888  . 

7,726,316 

17,042,621 

1889  . 

707,406 

3,243,877 

15,740,691 

1890  . 

987,495 

5,621,662 

21,442,461 

23,661,542 

21,840,964 

1891  . . 

1,182,752 

6,793,576 

1892  . 

.  13,628,635 

i,37i,558 

6,840,771 

1893  . 

927,45! 

4,440,6i5 

21,965,515 

1894  . 

1,091,296 

19,964,713 

60,224,310 

1895  . - 

626,866 

5,656,437 

20,119,836 

1896  . . 

523,520 

5,661,770 

17,974,442 

1897  . 

768,490 

5,166,731 

23,987,731 

1898  . 

632,326 

4,835,865 

16,385,936 

1899  . 

1,882,671 

7,822,772 

25,688,898 

1900  . . 

1,222,987 

14,879,229 

51,240 ,272 

Total  .  .  . 

$19,626,254 

$142,659, !04 

$468,968,581 

1  Sixteenth 

[1901]  Annual 

Report  of  the 

U.  S.  Commissioner  of 

Labor,  p.  24. 


66 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


STRIKES  IN  COAL  MINES  1 


Year 

Men  on  strike 

Days  lost 

1906 

372,343 

19,201,348 

1907 

32,540 

462,392 

1908 

145,145 

5,449,938 

1909 

24,763 

723,634 

I9IO 

218,493 

19,250,524 

19H 

4L4I3 

983,737 

1912 

311,056 

12,527,305 

1913 

135,395 

3,049,412 

1914 

161,720 

11,013,667 

1915 

67,190 

2,467,431 

1916 

170,633 

3,344,586 

1917 

158,360 

2,3H,250 

1  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States  1918,  p.  275. 


STRIKES  AND  LOCKOUTS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES1 


M 

00 

00 

M 

•1905 

Average 

Days 

£ 

Year 

CD 

+-> 

u  2 

<U  0 

Duration 

per 

Establish- 

co 

u 

03  tj 

X 

<D  O 

w, 

•a  ® 

*d 

•g'G 

H  +-* 

§C/3 

as 

ment 

V 

•  H 

In 

0  X) 

0.  a 

CO  u. 

V  ° 

C 

"rt 

U 

M-l 

O 

O 

c n 

V 

•  H 

u 

4-» 

Lock¬ 

outs 

tn 

a  « 

M  O 

W  (J 

Is 

s° 

c n 

w 

1881 

471 

6 

12.7 

32.2 

101,070 

655 

130,176 

1882 

454 

22 

21.9 

105.0 

120,860 

4,131 

158,802 

1883 

478 

28 

20.6 

56.8 

122,198 

20,512 

170,275 

1884 

443 

42 

30.4 

41.4 

117,313 

18,121 

165,175 

1885 

645 

50 

30.0 

28.0 

158,584 

15,424 

258,129 

1886 

1,432 

140 

23-3 

32.2 

407,152 

101,980 

610,024 

1887 

1,436 

67 

20.9 

49.8 

272,776 

57,534 

439,306 

1888 

906 

1,075 

40 

36 

20.3 

26.2 

74-9 

57-5 

103,218 

205,068 

13,787 

10,471 

162,880 

260,290 

1889 

1890 

1891 

1,833 

L7I7 

64 

69 

24.2 

34-9 

73-9 

37-8 

285,900 

245,042 

19,233 

14,116 

373,499 

329,953 

1892 

1,298 

61 

23-4 

72.0 

163,499 

30,050 

238,685 

1893 

1,305 

70 

20.6 

34-7 

195,008 

13,016 

28,548 

287,756 

1894 

L349 

55 

32.4 

39-7 

505,049 

690,044 

1895 

1,215 

40 

20.5 

32.3 

285,742 

12,754 

407,188 

1896 

1,026 

40 

22.0 

65.1 

183,813 

3,675 

248,838 

1897 

1,078 

32 

27.4 

38.6 

332,570 

7,651 

416,154 

1898 

1,056 

42 

22.5 

48.8 

182,067 

11,038 

14,698 

263,219 

1899 

1,797 

4i 

15-2 

37-5 

308,267 

431,889 

1900 

1,779 

60 

23.1 

265.1 

399,656 

46,562 

567,719 

1901 

1902 

2,924 

•?.  162 

88 

29.2 

25-4 

27.0 

158.9 

396,280 
553, 143 
531,682 

16,257 

30,304 

563,843 

691,507 

787,834 

573,815 

78 

3,494 

1903 

154 

29.1 

53-5 

1x2,332 

1904 

1905 

2,307 

2,077 

II 2 
109 

35-5 

23-1 

69.4 

41. 7 

375,754 

176,337 

44,908 

68,474 

302,434 

Total. . . . 

36,757 

1,546 

25-4 

84.6 

6,728,048 

716,231 

9,529,434 

1  Twenty-first  [1906]  Annual  Report  of  the  U.  S.  Commissioner  of 
Labor. 


PART  II 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  AND 
COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION 
OF  INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


GENERAL  DISCUSSION 


INDUSTRIAL  CONCILIATION  AND  ANTI¬ 
STRIKE  LEGISLATION  RELATING  TO 
PUBLIC  UTILITIES  IN  VARIOUS 
COUNTRIES  1 

The  following  brief  summary  of  the  conciliation  and  anti¬ 
strike  provisions  of  the  laws  of  various  countries  is  compiled 
from  a  publication  of  the  British  Board  of  Trade  on  strikes 
and  lockouts,  issued  in  19 T2,  and  a  report  of  the  chief  in¬ 
spector  of  factories  of  Victoria  on  the  antistrike  legislation 
throughout  the  Australian  States,  published  in  1915,  verified 
by  an  examination  of  the  original  texts  and  supplemented  by 
an  examination  of  the  more  recent  legislation.  The  sum¬ 
mary  is  reproduced  here  on  account  of  the  numerous  in¬ 
quiries  for  information  which  have  recently  come  to  the  bu¬ 
reau. 

COMMONWEALTH  OF  AUSTRALIA 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — Court  of  conciliation 
and  arbitration,  consisting  of  a  president,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Supreme  court  and  judges  of  the  Federal  or  a  State  supreme  court, 
appointed  by  the  president  as  his  deputies.  Provision  is  also  made  for 
conciliation  committees  of  equal  numbers  of  employers  and  employees; 
assessors  representing  the  parties  appointed  by  the  court  to  advise  it 
and  local  industrial  boards,  equally  representative  of  workers  and  em¬ 
ployers,  presided  over  by  a  judge  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  Common¬ 
wealth  or  supreme  courts  of  the  States.  The  procedure  is  varied.  The 
president  of  the  court  may  summon  parties  to  a  dispute  and  by  confer¬ 
ence  aim  to  reach  an  amicable  settlement,  or  there  may  be  an  investiga¬ 
tion  as  the  basis  of  an  amicable  settlement,  or  temporary  reference  of  a 
matter  to  a  conciliation  committee  or  local  industrial  board.  All  amicable 
settlements  have  the  force  of  a  formal  award. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are  il¬ 
legal. — The  initiation  or  continuance  of  any  strike  or  lockout  by  any  or¬ 
ganization  or  person  is  prohibited. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Penalty  of  £1,000 
($4,486.50)  against  any  person  or  organization  responsible  for  a  strike 

or  lockout. 


NEW  SOUTH  WALES 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — In  New  South 
Wales  the  law  is  similar  to  that  of  the  Commonwealth  and  of  Queens¬ 
land  in  that  there  are  both  an  industrial  court  (which  is  a  superior 
court  and  a  court  of  record)  and  industrial  boards  for  groups  of  in¬ 
dustries  or  callings,  awards  by  the  latter  being  subject  to  amendment, 
variation,  or  rescission  by  the  court. 

1  Monthly  Review  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics.  4:11-19.  January, 
1917. 


70 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  '  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  and  lockouts  of  all  kinds  are  prohibited.  An  injunction 
may  be  issued  by  the  industrial  court. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Employer  liable 
to  a  fine  of  £1,000  ($4,866.50);  worker  liable  to  a  fine  of  £50  ($243.33), 
which  is  a  charge  on  his  wages.  If  striker  was  member  of  a  union,  it 
may  be  held  liable  for  not  exceeding  £20  ($97.33)  of  the  penalty.  Pen¬ 
alty  on  union  for  aiding  or  instigating  strike  is  £1,000  ($4,866.50). 

QUEENSLAND 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — Industrial  court  ad¬ 
ministered  by  a  judge  appointed  by  the  governor  in  council.  Local  in¬ 
dustrial  boards  are  also  created  on  the  application  of  a  prescribed  num¬ 
ber  of  employers  and  employees.  The  court  has  jurisdiction  over  cer¬ 
tain  classes  of  cases  directly  and  over  others  on  appeal  from  industrial 
boards. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — In  the  case  of  public  utilities,  strikes  and  lockouts  are  illegal 
unless  a  conference  has  been  held  before  an  industrial  judge  and  proved 
abortive  and  unless  14  days’  notice  has  been  given  after  termination 
of  conference  and  a  secret  ballot  has  been  taken.  In  all  other  cases 
14  days’  notice  must  be  given  and  a  secret  ballot  taken. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — A  fine  of  £1,000 
($4,866.50)  may  be  levied  on  employer  or  union  and  £50  ($243.33)  on 
worker.  If  worker  is  member  of  a  union,  not  to  exceed  £20  ($97.33) 
of  the  penalty  may  be  levied  against  the  union.  Penalties  are  made  a 
charge  on  wages  and  on  funds  of  associations. 

SOUTH  AUSTRALIA 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — The  judge  of  the 
industrial  court  brings  parties  together  when  any  dispute  occurs,  and 
may  make  an  award  in  trades  where  there  is  none  in  force,  or  may 
change  an  existing  award.  When  sitting  to  make  a  final  adjudication, 
two  assessors,  representing  the  respective  parties  to  the  dispute,  assist 
the  judge  if  he  thinks  fit. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are  il¬ 
legal. — All  strikes  and  lockouts  are  illegal. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — A  fine  of  £500 
($2,433.25)  may  be  levied  against  an  association  and  a  similar  fine  of 
£500  ($2,433.25)  against  a  person,  or  three  months’  imprisonment.  Fine 
of  £20  ($97.33)  or  three  months’  imprisonment  for  picketing.  Fines  are 
made  a  charge  against  funds  of  associations  and  on  wages  over  and 
above  £2  ($9.73)  a  week.  An  employer  who  refuses  to  employ  or  a 
worker  who  refuses  to  accept  work  where  there  is  an  industrial  agree¬ 
ment  or  award  in  operation  may  be  fined. 

TASMANIA 

Legal  machinery  for  .the  adjustment  of  disputes. — Governor  appoints 
wages  boards.  Determination  of  wages  boards  may  be  suspended  by  the 
governor,  and  the  boards  are  then  required  to  review  their  action.  Ap¬ 
peals  may  be  taken  from  the  wages  boards  to  the  supreme  court.  No 
provision  is  made  for  conciliation. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — All  strikes  and  lockouts  in  wages  boards  trades  on  account  of 
any  matter  as  to  which  a  determination  has  been  reached. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — A  fine  of  £500 
($2,433.25)  may  be  levied  against  an  organization  and  £20  ($97-33) 

against  an  individual. 

VICTORIA 

No  legislation. 

WESTERN  AUSTRALIA 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — The  court  of  arbi¬ 
tration  consists  of  a  judge  of  the  supreme  court  and  two  representatives 
from  employers  and  employees,  all  three  being  appointed  by  the  governor. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


7 1 


No  provision  is  made  for  local  tribunals,  and  matters  come  directly  be¬ 
fore  the  court  of  arbitration  or  the  presiding  judge. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  and  lockouts  are  illegal.  An  employer  can  not  discharge 
a  worker  nor  can  a  worker  cease  work  (i)  before  a  reasonable  time 
has  elapsed  for  matter  to  be  dealt  with  by  the  court,  or  (2)  during  the 
time  the  proceedings  in  court  are  pending. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — A  fine  of  £100 
($486.65)  may  be  levied  against  industrial  union  or  employer,  and  of 
£10  ($48.67)  against  worker. 

NEW  ZEALAND 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — A  court  of  arbitra¬ 
tion,  consisting  of  three  members  appointed  by  the  governor  to  serve  for 
three  years;  one  “judge  of  the  court,”  to  have  the  tenure,  status,  and 
emoluments  of  a  judge  of  the  supreme  court;  and  one  each  nominated 
by  unions  of  employers  and  workmen,  respectively.  Councils  of  con¬ 
ciliations,  consisting  of  a  conciliation  commissioner  appointed  by  the 
governor  for  a  term  of  three  years,  to  have  jurisdiction  within  a  desig¬ 
nated  industrial  district,  and  one  to  three  assessors,  appointed  by  the 
commissioner  for  the  occasion*  on  the  nomination  of  the  parties  apply¬ 
ing  for  a  conciliation  council,  a  like  number  to  be  appointed  on  the  nom¬ 
ination  of  the  respondents.  Boards  of  investigation,  appointed  by  court 
of  arbitration.  The  procedure  is  for  a  council  of  conciliation,  when  re¬ 
quested,  to  attempt  to  adjust  the  controversy.  Failing  in  this,  the  matter 
may  be  referred  to  the  court  of  arbitration,  which  shall  make  a  deter¬ 
mination.  Disputes  involving  workers  on  the  Government  railways  or 
affecting  more  than  one  industrial  district  may  be  brought  before  the 
court  in  the  first  instances  by  application  of  a  union  of  railway  employees 
in  the  one  case  and  of  any  party  to  the  dispute  in  the  other. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Under  the  industrial  conciliation  and  arbitration  amendment  of 
1908,  which  applies  only  to  cases  where  an  award  or  an  industrial  agree¬ 
ment  is  in  force,  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited. 

Under  the  labor  disputes  investigation  act  of  1913,  which  applies 
only  to  cases  where  there  is  not  an  existing  award  or  industrial  agree¬ 
ment,  notice  must  be  given  to  the  minister,  who  must  refer  matter  to 
an  industrial  commissioner  or  committee.  If  no  settlement  is  effected 
within  14  days  from  delivery  of  notice  to  the  minister  the  labor  de¬ 
partment  conducts  a  secret  ballot,  and  then  7  days  must  elapse  before 
cessation  of  work. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Employer  liable 
to  £500  ($2,433.25)  fine  and  employee  to  £10  ($48.67).  In  the  case  of 
public  utilities  the  penalty  to  the  worker  is  £25  ($166.66).  For  en¬ 
couraging  or  instigating  a  strike  or  lockout  the  scale  of  fines  is:  Worker, 
£10  ($48.67);  employer  or  union,  £200  ($973.30).  The  wages  of  workers 
may  be  attached  for  fines.  Penalty  for  striking  or  locking  out  before 
notice  is  given  or  before  expiration  of  seven  days  from  the  secret  bal¬ 
lot,  £10  ($48.67)  to  a  worker  and  £500  ($2,433.25)  to  employer.  Wages 
of  worker  may  be  attached. 

Remarks. — At  any  time  during  the  progress  of  a  strike  5  per  cent  of 
the  workers  concerned  may  demand  a  secret  ballot  on  any  question  re¬ 
lating  to  the  strike. 

AUSTRIA 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  and  lockouts  on  public  utilities  are  prohibited. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Union  may  be 
dissolved  and  funds  and  property  seized. 

Remarks. — Before  forming  a  union  the  organization  must  notify  the 
Government  authorities  and  send  them  a  copy  of  the  constitution  and 
by-laws.  The  authorities  may  then  forbid  the  formation  of  the  union 
if  they  consider  it  will  be  dangerous  to  the  State. 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — Trade-unions  of  em¬ 
ployees  of  public  utilities  are  permitted  under  Government  supervision, 
posts,  and  telegraph,  through  official  channels. 

Employees  may  present  grievances  or  requests  to  the  minister  of  railways, 


72 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  and  lockouts  prohibited  on  railroads  and  in  all  forms 
of  the  public  service  (railways,  postal,  telegraph,  and  telephone  service, 
all  of  which  are  under  State  control). 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Imprisonment  or 
fine. 

Remarks. — There  has  been  no  serious  strike  on  Belgian  railroads  since 
their  establishment.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  positions  on  the  rail¬ 
ways  are  much  sought  after,  because  of  stability  of  employment,  pensions, 
and  on  account  of  the  prestige  of  being  in  the  Government  service. 

CANADA 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — The  law  is  admin¬ 
istered  by  the  minister  of  labor,  and  is  under  the  immediate  direction  of 
the  registrar  of  boards  of  conciliation  and  investigation  appointed  by  the 
governor  in  council.  Boards  of  conciliation  and  investigation  are  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  minister  of  labor,  one  member  being  nominated  by  each 
party  to  the  dispute  and  the  third  by  those  two.  If  nominations  are  not 
made  in  due  time,  the  minister  appoints  on  his  own  motion.  Jurisdic¬ 
tion  by  the  minister  is  obtained  by  the  request  of  either  party  for  the 
appointment  of  a  board  of  conciliation  and  investigation. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  and  lockouts  are  illegal  in  public  utilities  and  mines  un¬ 
til  after  an  investigation  by  a  Government  board  and  the  publication  of 
its  report. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — A  fine  ranging 
from  $10  to  $100  may  be  levied  on  each  worker,  and  from  $ioo  to  $i,ooo 
on  each  employer,  for  each  day  an  illegal  strike  or  lockout  continues; 
also  any  person  who  encourages  any  employer  to  declare  or  continue  a 
lockout,  or  any  employee  to  go  or  continue  on  strike,  illegally  may  be 
fined  from  $50  to  $1,000.  Penalties  are  not  imposed  by  the  Government 
but  must  be  enforced  by  the  injured  party  to  the  dispute. 

Remarks. — The  object  sought  in  publishing  the  report  of  boards  of 
investigation  is  to  enlist  the  coercive  force  of  public  opinion  upon  the 
side  of  the  right  as  found  by  the  board. 

DENMARK 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — By  a  law  passed 
in  1910  provision  is  made  for  the  appointment  of  a  permanent  arbitration 
court  of  six  members,  selected  from  organizations  of  employers  and  em¬ 
ployees,  with  a  president  and  vice-president,  with  qualifications  of  an 
ordinary  judge.  It  is  the  duty  of  this  court  to  make  the  parties  to  a 
dispute  respect  any  agreement  between  them.  A  Government  conciliator 
is  appointed  for  two  years.  Whenever  a  strike  or  lockout  is  impend¬ 
ing  (public  notice  being  compulsory),  it  is  his  duty  to  intervene  and 
attempt  to  effect  a  settlement. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  or  lockouts  are  prohibited  in  cases  where  court  awards 
or  trade  agreements  are  broken.  In  cases  where  no  trade  agreements 
exist  a  strike  is  legal,  but  public  notice  must  be  given  before  it  is 

started. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Fines. 

ENGLAND 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — There  is  no  legal 
machinery,  strictly  speaking,  for  the  adjustment  of  wage  disputes  on  the 
railways,  but  effective  machinery  is  in  existence  which  is  quasi  official, 
consisting  of  an  agreement  between  the  railroads  and  their  employees, 
which  was  originally  negotiated  by  a  representative  of  the  board  of 
trade  in  1907.  It  was  amended  as  the  result  of  conferences  and  the 
report  of  a  royal  commission  in  19 11.  These  changes  were  the  outcome 
of  the  railway  strike  in  1911.  By  this  agreement  boards  are  created, 
with  equal  representation  of  railroads  and  employees,  to  perform  the  con¬ 
ciliation  work  not  settled  by  direct  negotiation  between  the  parties.  If 
a  settlement  can  not  be  reached  a  neutral  chairman  or  umpire,  selected 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


73 


by  the  conciliation  boards  from  a  panel  prepared  by  the  board  of  trade, 
is  called  in,  and  his  decision  is  final. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — No  legislation. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — No  legislation. 

Remarks. — The  adjustment  of  disputes  on  other  public  utilities  and 
in  the  mining  industry  is  provided  for  in  the  conciliation  act  of  1896. 
Conciliators  or  boards  of  conciliation  are  appointed  by  the  board  of 
trade.  Arbitrators  are  also  appointed  on  the  application  of  both  parties, 
selected  from  panels  of  employers,  employees,  and  “persons  of  eminence 
and  impartiality”  established  by  the  board  of  trade.  For  conciliation 
proceedings  the  board  of  trade  acts  on  its  own  initiative  or  by  the  re¬ 
quest  of  either  party;  for  arbitration,  on  the  application  of  both  parties. 

FRANCE 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — The  only  qualification  as  to  complete  freedom  of  action  in  the 
railway  service  is  that  any  engineer,  fireman,  or  trainman  shall  not  desert 
his  post _  during  the  progress  of  a  journey.  Postal  employees  and  em¬ 
ployees  in  shipping  service  controlled  by  the  Government  are  prohibited 
from  striking.  . 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Desertion  of  trains 
between  terminals  is  punishable  with  imprisonment  ranging  from  six 
months  to  two  years.  Postal  and  other  civil  employees  may  be  dis¬ 
missed  or  suffer  losses  in  pay.  The  monopoly  privilege  may  be  with¬ 
drawn  from  the  shipping  service  on  which  a  strike  occurs. 

Remarks. — In  all  occupations  except  those  mentioned  the  right  of 
employers  and  employees  to  take  concerted  action  in  a  peaceful  manner 
with  a  view  to  cessation  of  work  has  been  officially  recognized  since 
1884.  On  October  2,  1910,  the  National  Federation  of  Railway  Em¬ 

ployees  of  France  and  the  Federation  of  Unions  of  Railway  Engineers 
and  Firemen  called  a  general  strike  on  all  the  railroads  of  the  country. 
The  Government,  using  its  full  authority  under  military  laws,  called 
for  a  mobilization  of  the  strikers,  and  ordered  them  to  do  military 
duty  for  three  weeks.  Their  military  duties  were  specified  as  the  keep¬ 
ing  of  the  railways  under  normal  working  conditions  under  the  orders 
of  their  superior  officers.  This  measure  defeated  the  strike,  which  was 
called  off  after  six  days. 

GERMANY 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — Means  for  enabling 
railways  workers  of  all  groups  to  bring  their  requests  and  grievances  to 
the  notice  of  the  authorities  have  been  instituted  by  all  the  State  rail¬ 
way  administrations  in  Germany  under  the  name  of  “workmen’s  com¬ 
mittees.” 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  and  lockouts  are  practically  prohibited  on  public  utilities 
There  are  no  specific  laws  forbidding  strikes,  but  rules  and  practices  of 
railway  and  other  public  utilities  administration  make  strikes  impossible. 
About  90  per  cent,  of  the  organized  railway  employees  belong  to  unions, 
the  by-laws  of  which  specifically  waive  all  claim  to  the  right  to  strike. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — No  specific  pen¬ 
alties  for  engaging  in  strikes,  but  workmen  are  forbidden  to  belong  to 
unions  which  assert  the  right  to  strike.  All  union  organizations  and 
by-laws  are  subject  to  governmental  sanction.  The  coercive  force  of  the 
law  is  found  in  the  fact  that  a  railway  employee  who  engaged  in  a  strike 
would  be  dismissed  or  fail  of  advancement  in  his  work.  Every  Govern¬ 
ment  employee  looks  forward  to  attaining  the  status  of  an  “official,”  and 
this  is  practically  impossible  if  he  belongs  to  or  is  known  to  sympathize 
with  a  trade-union  which  does  not  meet  with  Government  approval. 

HOLLAND 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — Delegates  are  se¬ 
lected  from  different  groups  of  railway  employees  who  are  authorized 


74 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


to  present  the  wishes  and  complaints  of  railway  workers  before  the 
managers.  Arbitration  boards  have  been  established  for  the  enforcement 
of  penalties  imposed  because  of  infractions  of  working  rules  and  condi¬ 
tions. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  in  railway  service  are  prohibited. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Imprisonment  or 
fine. 

Remarks. — Legislation  prohibiting  strikes  was  the  outcome  of  a  gen¬ 
eral  strike  in  the  Dutch  railway  service  in  1903. 

ITALY 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  are  prohibited  in  railway  and  public  service. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Fine  and  loss  of 
employment. 

Remarks. — Legislation  relative  to  fines  and  loss  of  employment  would 
not  practically  prevent  strikes,  because  of  the  impossibility  of  enforcing 
the  law  upon  so  many  individuals.  The  real  restraining  influence  is  the 
power  of  the  Government  to  call  out  the  reserves  and  compel  strikers  to 
resume  work  under  military  law. 

OTTOMAN  EMPIRE 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — In  the  case  of  a 
dispute  relative  to  wages  or  working  conditions,  a  conciliation  board  is 
organized,  composed  of  six  members,  three  representing  employers  and 
three  representing  employees.  The  boards  are  presided  over  by  an  of¬ 
ficial  appointed  by  the  Government.  The  agreements  reached  by  these 
boards  are  enforced  by  the  Government.  If  the  parties  to  the  dispute 
can  not  agree,  the  employees  are  free  to  stop  work,  but  nothing  must 
be  done  by  them  opposed  to  freedom  of  action. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  in  public  utilities  are  unlawful  until  grounds  of  dispute 
are  communicated  to  the  Government  and  attempts  at  conciliation  have 
failed. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Imprisonment  or 
fine. 

Remarks. — The  organization  of  trade-unions  in  establishments  carry¬ 
ing  out  any  public  service  is  forbidden. 

PORTUGAL 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Illegal  in  public  utilities  until  8  to  12  days’  notice  has  been 
given,  together  with  a  statement  as  to  the  causes  for  a  strike. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Loss  of  employ¬ 
ment. 

Remarks. — In  all  services,  except  public  utilities,  strikes  have  been 
expressly  permitted  since  the  establishment  of  the  Republic  in  10 10. 

ROUMANIA 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  are  prohibited  in  public  utilities. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Imprisonment  and 
loss  of  employment. 

Remarks. — No  employee  of  a  public  utility  can  join  a  trade-union 
without  the  authorization  of  the  Government. 

RUSSIA 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal.- — Strikes  are  prohibited  among  employees  of  public  utilities. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Imprisonment  and 
loss  of  employment.  Authorities  may  arrest  or  banish  strikers  without 
bringing  them  before  a  court. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


75 


SPAIN 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockout:  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  are  illegal  in  public  utilities  until  five  to  eight  days’ 
notice  is  given,  together  with  a  statement  as  to  the  causes  of  the  strike. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Leaders  and  of¬ 
ficials  of  labor  organizations  or  concerted  movements  who  do  not  make  a 
declaration  as  to  the  causes  for  a  strike  are  liable  to  imprisonment. 

Remarks. — In  industries  other  than  public  utilities  strikes  are  ex¬ 
pressly  allowed  provided  they  are  not  accompanied  by  threats  or  violence. 

SWITZERLAND 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — The  Canton  of 
Geneva  has  established  a  system  of  conciliation  and  arbitration.  Concili- 
ataors  are  elected  directly  by  the  two  parties  to  the  dispute.  If  they 
can  not  reach  a  settlement,  recourse  is  had  to  an  arbitration  board  under 
Government  auspices.  There  is  no  law  for  the  settlement  of  disputes  in 
the  Federal  railway  service. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — Strikes  are  prohibited  in  the  Federal  railway  service  and  in  the 
Canton  of  Geneva  whenever  an  industrial  agreement  or  award  is  broken. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — In  the  Federal 
service  strikers  are  punishable  by  fines  and  cautions.  There  are  no  pen¬ 
alties  in  the  Canton  of  Geneva. 

Remarks. — There  have  been  no  strikes  on  the  railways  of  Switzerland 
since  their  nationalization  in  1897. 

TRANSVAAL 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — The  Transvaal  law 
is  administered  by  a  department  of  labor.  Boards  of  investigation  are 
appointed  on  the  request  of  either  party  to  a  dispute.  The  board  has  the 
power  of  the  supreme  court  as  to  securing  evidence,  etc.,  but  can  not 
make  binding  orders.  Failing  the  adjustment  of  a  dispute  by  agreement, 
the  board  reports  to  the  minister  of  labor  its  recommendations,  which  are 
officially  published  and  also  given  to  the  newspapers. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — In  public  utilities,  the  mining  industry,  and  in  any  other  industry 
to  which  the  provisions  of  the  act  are  extended  by  proclamation,  strikes 
are  unlawful  until  after  an  inquiry  by  a  Government  board  and  until 
one  month  after  the  publication  of  the  board’s  report. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — Any  striker  is 
liable  to  a  fine  of  £10  to  £50  ($48.67  to  $243.33)  a  day,  and,  in  de¬ 
fault  of  fine,  imprisonment,  or  imprisonment  for  3  months  without  the 
option  of  fine.  Any  one  encouraging  another  to  strike  may  be  fined  £50 
to  £250  ($243.33  to  $1,216.63)  or  6  months’  imprisonment.  Any  em¬ 
ployer  declaring  a  lockout  may  be  fined  £100  to  £1,000  ($486.65  to 
$4,866.50)  a  day,  or  given  12  months’  imprisonment. 

Remarks. — The  Transvaal  law  is  based,  as  regards  prevention  and 
procedure,  upon  the  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act  of 
1907. 


UNITED  STATES 

Legal  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes. — Law  providing  for 
for  conciliation  and  arbitration  of  disputes  on  railways  which  interrupt 
or  threaten  to  interrupt  the  business  of  the  employer  to  the  detriment 
of  the  public  interest,  under  the  administration  of  a  board  of  mediation 
and  conciliation  appointed  by  the  President.  The  board  attempts  media¬ 
tion  and  conciliation,  which  failing,  the  board  seeks  to  procure  the  sub¬ 
mission,  through  an  agreement  of  the  parties,  of  the  dispute  to  a  board 
of  arbitration.  Jurisdiction  is  obtained  at  the  request  of  either  party 
to  a  dispute,  or  the  board  may  proffer  its  services. 

Conditions  under  which  strikes  and  lockouts  are  prohibited  or  are 
illegal. — No  legislation  by  the  Federal  Government. 

Penalties  for  enforcement  of  antistrike  legislation. — No  penalties 
against  strikes. 


/6 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


THE  KANSAS  INDUSTRIAL  COURT  BILL1 

Governor  Henry  J.  Allen  of  Kansas  called  a  special  ses¬ 
sion  of  the  Legislature  on  January  5,  1920,  to  consider  a  bill 
for  the  establishment  of  an  industrial  court  for  the  trial  and 
determination  of  industrial  disputes  arising  in  the  food,  cloth¬ 
ing,  fuel,  transportation,  and  public  utilities  industries.  The 
bill  was  prepared  under  the  direction  of  the  Governor. 
Amendments  introduced  by  the  Legislature  give  the  court 
a  wider  range  than  as  originally  provided.  The  labor  lobby 
made  vigorous  attempts  to  make  the  court  a  mere  instru¬ 
ment  for  voluntary  arbitration.  The  measure  became  law 
about  January  25th. 

The  manufacture  of  food  products,  the  manufacture  of 
“clothing  and  all  manner  of  wearing  apparel  in  common  use 
by  the  people/’  the  mining  or  production  of  fuel,  “the  trans¬ 
portation  of  all  food  products  and  articles  or  substances  en¬ 
tering  into  wearing  apparel  or  fuel,”  and  all  public  utilities 
and  common  carriers  as  defined  by  law  under  the  general 
statutes  of  Kansas,  are  declared  to  be  affected  with  a  public 
interest  and  therefore  subject  to  supervision  by  the  State 
“for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  public  peace,  protecting 
the  public  health,  preventing  industrial  strife,  disorder  and 
waste,  and  securing  regular  and  orderly  conduct  of  the  busi¬ 
nesses  directly  affecting  the  living  conditions  of  the  people.” 
Any  person,  firm  or  corporation  engaged  in  any  of  these  in¬ 
dustries  affected  with  the  public  interest,  either  as  owner, 
manager  or  worker,  is  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  law. 

The  bill  creates  a  Court  of  Industrial  Relations  to  be  com¬ 
posed  of  three  judges  appointed  by  the  Governor,  by  and 
with  the  consent  of  the  Senate.  One  judge  shall  be  appoint¬ 
ed  each  year  and  each  judge  will  serve  for  three  years.  The 
salary  of  the  judges  is  fixed  at  $5,000  a  year.  This  Court  will 
sit  at  Topeka,  the  capital  of  the  State,  and  shall  be  a  Court 
of  record.  The  Court  determines  its  own  procedure,  but 
the  rules  of  evidence  as  recognized  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  State  of  Kansas  are  binding  upon  it  in  the  taking 
of  testimony. 


1  Law  and  Labor  2:31-3.  February,  1920. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


77 


The  power  and  duties  of  the  Public  Service  Commission 
are  transferred  to  the  Court  and  the  commission  abolished. 
“In  case  of  a  controversy  arising  between  employers 
and  workers,  or  between  groups  or  crafts  of  workers, 
engaged  in  any  of  said  industries  (referred  to  above) 

*  *  *  if  it  shall  appear  to  said  Court  that  said  con¬ 

troversy  may  endanger  the  continuity  or  efficiency  of  ser¬ 
vice  of  any  of  said  industries  *  *  *  or  affect  the  produc¬ 
tion  or  transportation  of  the  necessaries  of  life  *  *  *  or 

produce  industrial  strife,  disorder  or  waste  or  endanger  the 
orderly  operation  of  such  industries  *  *  *  full  power,  au¬ 

thority  and  jurisdiction  are  hereby  granted  to  said  Court  of 
Industrial  Relations  upon  its  own  initiative,  to  summon  all 
necessary  parties  before  it  and  to  investigate  said  contro¬ 
versy  *  *  *  and  to  investigate  conditions  surrounding  the 

workers  and  to  consider  the  wages  paid  to  labor  and  the  re¬ 
turn  accruing  to  capital,  and  the  rights  and  welfare  of  the 
public,  and  all  other  matters  affecting  the  conduct  of  said 
industries  *  *  *  and  to  settle  and  adjust  all  such  contro¬ 
versies  *  *  *.”  It  is  further  made  the  duty  of  the  Court 

to  investigate  and  determine  controversies  upon  the  com¬ 
plaint  of  either  party  to  a  controversy,  upon  the  complaint 
“of  any  ten  citizen  taxpayers  of  the  community  in  which 
such  industries  *  *  *  are  located,  or  upon  the  complaint 

of  the  attorney  general  of  the  state.”  Upon  the  conclusion 
of  the  investigation  and  “as  expeditiously  as  possible”  the 
Court  shall  serve  upon  “all  interested  parties  its  findings, 
stating  specifically  the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which 
said  industry  *  *  *  should  be  thereafter  conducted  insofar 

as -the  matters  determined  by  said  Court  are  concerned.” 
The  Court  “shall  order  such  changes,  if  any,  as  are  neces¬ 
sary  to  be  made  in  and  about  the  conduct  of  said  industry 

*  *  *  in  the  matter  of  working  and  living  conditions,  hours 

of  labor,  rules  and  practices,  and  a  reasonable  minimum  wage 
or  standard  of  wages,  *  *  *  provided,  all  such  terms,  con¬ 

ditions  and  wages  shall  be  just  and  reasonable  and  such  as 
to  enable  such  industries  *  *  *  to  produce  or  transport 

their  products  or  continue  their  operations  and  thus  to  pro¬ 
mote  the  general  welfare.”  The  terms  ordered  by  the  Court 
“shall  continue  for  such  reasonable  time  as  may  be  fixed 


78 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


by  said  Court,  or  until  changed  by  agreement  of  the  parties 
with  the  approval  of  the  Court”;  but  a  party  complying  in 
good  faith  with  the  terms  of  the  order  for  sixty  days  or  more 
and  finding  the  order  “unjust,  unreasonable  or  impracticable” 
may  apply  to  the  Court  for  a  modification. 

Section  9  provides:  “It  is  hereby  declared  necessary  for 
the  promotion  of  the  general  welfare  that  workers  engaged 
in  any  of  said  industries,  employments,  utilities  or  common 
carriers  shall  receive  at  all  times  a  fair  wage  and  have  health¬ 
ful  and  moral  surroundings  while  engaged  in  such  labor; 
and  that  capital  invested  therein  shall  receive  at  all  times 
a  fair  rate  of  return  to  the  owners  thereof.  The  right  of 
every  person  to  make  his  own  choice  of  employment  and 
to  make  and  carry  out  fair,  just  and  reasonable  contracts 
and  agreements  of  employment,  is  hereby  recognized.  *  *  * 

The  bill  gives  the  Court  ample  power  to  compel  the  at¬ 
tendance  of  witnesses  and  the  production  of  books.  How¬ 
ever,  in  the  event  that  any  party  to  a  controversy  fails  to 
obey  an  order  of  the  Court,  the  Court  is  “authorized  to  bring 
proper  proceedings  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of 
Kansas  to  compel  compliance”  and  should  either  party  to  a 
controversy  “feel  aggrieved”  at  any  order  made  and  entered 
by  the  Court,  the  part}'-  is  “authorized  and  empowered  with¬ 
in  ten  days  after  service  of  such  order  upon  it  to  bring  proper 
proceedings  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  Kansas  to 
compel  said  Court  of  Industrial  Relations  to  make  and  enter 
a  just,  reasonable  and  lawful  order  in  the  premises.”  In 
such  a  proceeding  in  the  supreme  court,  the  evidence  in  the 
case  before  the  Court  of  Industrial  Relations  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  by  the  supreme  court  but  either  party  may  intro¬ 
duce  such  other  evidence  as  the  supreme  court  may  deem 
necessary  to  enable  it  to  render  a  just  and  proper  judgment. 
Such  a  proceeding  will  be  given  precedence  over  other  civil 
cases.  Any  action  brought  to  set  aside  a  decision  of  the 
Court  of  Industrial  Relations  must  be  brought  within  thirty 
days  from  the  time  the  decision  is  rendered. 

Any  union  or  association  of  workers  which  may  incorpor¬ 
ate  under  the  laws  of  the  state,  shall  be  recognized  as  a  legal 
entity,  and  the  right  of  such  corporations  to  bargain  col¬ 
lectively  for  their  members  is  recognized.  However,  the  in- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


79 


dividual  members  of  unincorporated  associations,  desiring  to 
bargain  collectively,  may  appoint  in  writing  an  officer  or  offi¬ 
cers  to  represent  them  in  making  collective  bargains,  and  the 
written  appointment  of  such  officers  shall  be  made  a  perma¬ 
nent  record  of  the  union. 

It  is  made  unlawful  to  discharge  or  discriminate  against 
any  employee  because  he  testifies  as  a  witness  before  the 
Court  or  signs  any  complaint  or  does  any  other  thing  to 
bring  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  any  controversy,  or  to 
combine  or  conspire  to  boycott,  picket,  advertise  or  carry 
on  propaganda  against  any  person,  firm  or  corporation  be¬ 
cause  of  any  action  taken  under  the  direction  of  the  Court 
or  because  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  has  been  invoked. 

It  is  made  unlawful  to  cease  operations  for  the  purpose 
of  limiting  production  and  transportation,  to  effect  prices  or 
to  avoid  the  provisions  of  this  law,  but  any  concern  may 
apply  to  the  Court  for  authority  to  cease  operation  and  if 
the  application  “shall  be  found  in  good  faith  and  merito¬ 
rious,”  then  the  application  shall  be  granted  by  the  Court.  It 
is  made  unlawful,  individually  or  in  combination,  to  do  any 
act  with  intent  “to  hinder,  delay,  limit  or  suspend  the  opera¬ 
tion  of  any  of  the  industries  *  *  *  or  to  delay,  limit  or 

suspend  the  production  or  transportation  of  the  products 
of  such  industries  *  *  However  it  is  not  unlawful  for 

an  individual  to  quit  his  employment  at  any  time. 

Violation  of  the  act  is  a  misdemeanor  punishable  by  a 
fine  not  exceeding  $1,000  or  imprisonment  not  exceeding  one 
year  or  both.  But  any  officer  of  any  corporation  engaged 
in  any  of  these  industries  or  an  official  of  any  labor  union 
employed  in  these  industries  who  shall  wilfully  violate  any 
of  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a 
felony  and  punishable  by  a  fine  not  to  exceed  $5,000  or  im¬ 
prisonment  in  the  penitentiary  at  hard  labor  for  not  more 
than  two  years  or  both. 

In  case  of  the  suspension  or  cessation  of  operation  of  any 
of  these  industries  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  law, 
if  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court  it  will  seriously  effect  the  pub¬ 
lic  welfare  the  Court  is  “directed  to  take  proper  proceedings 
in  any  Court  of  competent  jurisdiction  *  *  *  to  take  over 

control,  direct,  and  operate  said  industry  *  *  *  provided, 


8o 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


that  a  fair  return  shall  be  paid  to  the  owners  of  such  in¬ 
dustry  *  *  *  and  also  a  fair  wage  to  the  workers  engaged 
therein  during  the  time  of  such  operations  *  * 

An  industrial  controversy  in  any  industry  not  specifically 
designated  by  this  law  may  be,  by  mutual  consent  in  writing 
of  the  parties  thereto,  submitted  to  the  Court,  and  its  de¬ 
cision  shall  have  the  same  effect  as  decisions  in  cases  in 
industries  specifically  covered  by  the  law. 

The  findings  of  the  Court  as  to  minimum  or  standard  of 
wages  “shall  be  deemed  prima  facia  reasonable  and  just”  and 
such  minimum  or  standard,  shall  take  effect  as  of  the  time  when 
the  investigation  of  the  Court  leading  to  that  finding  began. 
Either  party  having  a  balance  due  from  the  other  as  a  result 
of  such  finding  may  sue  therefor. 

The  justices  of  this  Court  are  “authorized  and  empowered 
to  make  or  cause  to  be  made  within  the  state  or  elsewhere  such 
investigations  and  inquries  as  to  industrial  conditions  and  re¬ 
lations  as  may  be  profitable  or  necessary  for  the  purpose  of 
familiarizing  themselves  with  industrial  problems.”  The  Court 
is  directed  to  make  an  annual  report  covering  all  of  its  ex¬ 
pense  and  proceedings. 

THE  COLORADO  INDUSTRIAL  COMMISSION1 

The  nearest  approach  to  the  Kansas  statute  is  an  act  of  the 
State  of  Colorado,  enacted  in  1915,  creating  an  industrial  com¬ 
mission,  and  conferring  upon  it  certain  powers  as  to  the  ad¬ 
justment  of  industrial  disputes.  This  act  is  patterned  to  some 
extent  after  the  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Acts,  and  makes 
it  unlawful  for  employers  to  declare  or  cause  a  lockout,  or 
for  employees  to  go  on  a  strike  prior  to  or  during  an  investiga¬ 
tion  or  arbitration  of  a  dispute.  This  act  received  its  first  test 
in  this  regard  during  the  coal  strike  of  November  last,  a  res¬ 
training  order  against  the  proposed  strike  of  November  21 
being  issued  under  it  by  the  District  Court  of  the  City  and 
County  of  Denver.  In  obedience  thereto  the  district  officers  of 
the  miner’s  union  recalled  their  strike  order,  resulting,  it  is 
claimed,  in  a  production  of  coal  more  nearly  normal  than  in 
any  other  State  of  that  section  of  the  country.  However,  the 
union  atacked  the  law  on  the  ground  of  its  claimed  unconstitu- 


1  Monthly  Labor  Review.  10:810-1.  March,  1920. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


81 


tionality,  and  some  technical  questions  as  to  its  enactment.  The 
act  limits  its  application,  at  least  in  the  case  of  lockouts,  to  in¬ 
dustries  “affected  with  a  public  interest.”  In  its  later  delib¬ 
erations  the  district  court,  without  suggestion  from  either  party, 
injected  the  test  of  public  interest  into  the  case  in  hand,  and 
ruled  that  underground  mines  are  not  affected  with  a  public 
interest  and  fall  outside  the  act.  The  case  has  been  carried 
to  the  Supreme  Court  on  a  writ  of  error  for  a  decision  on  this 
subject,  as  well  as  on  the  constitutional  questions,  and  it  will 
be  of  interest  to  know  what  conclusion  shall  be  reached  by 
the  Court  on  these  points.  However,  it  seems  obvious  enough 
that  coal  mines  are  affected  with  a  public  interest,  so  that  the 
main  concern  is  with  the  validity  of  the  act  that  undertakes  to 
prevent  the  cessation  of  industrial  operations  on  grounds  of  the 
public  concern  until  suitable  time  for  investigation  has  elapsed. 

Though  this  first  legal  process  for  enforcement  has  thus  been 
opposed,  the  commission  reports  results  of  great  value  flowing 
from  the  operations  of  the  law.2  Since  its  enactment  in  1915, 
“this  state  has  been  comparatively  free  from  labor  trouble,  and 
has  been  absolutely  free  from  any  protracted  strike;  and  blood¬ 
shed,  violence,  and  the  destruction  of  property  have  been  un¬ 
known.” 

The  law  requires  30  days’  notice  before  a  strike  or  lockout 
is  actually  engaged  in;  and  this  provision,  “against  which 
violent  criticism  has  been  directed,  has  saved  the  situation  in¬ 
numerable  times.”  This  period  permits  opportunity  for  con¬ 
ciliatory  efforts,  which  have  many  times  been  successful.  If 
this  fails,  informal  conferences  often  afford  a  means  of  arriv¬ 
ing  at  an  understanding;  while  in  other  cases,  formal  hear¬ 
ings  and  awards  are  resorted  to.  From  March,  1917,  when  the 
present  commission  took  office,  up  to  November  1,  1918,  the 
commission  handled  controversies  involving  1,430  employers 
and  28,888  employees.  There  were  196  cases  reported  to  the 
commission,  of  which  145  were  reported  with  the  statutory  30 
days’  notice;  32  resulted  in  strikes  of  from  1  to  65  days’ 
duration,  but  all  were  settled,  men  returning  to  work.  The 
record  is  believed  to  show  “ample  justification  for  the  enact¬ 
ment  and  continued  existence  of  the  law,”  which  all  interests 
“are  coming  to  view  as  a  step  in  the  right  direction.” 

•Second  Report  of  the  Industrial  Commission  of  Colorado,  1917-18, 
p.  98-121. 


82 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


TRIE  AUSTRALIAN  SYSTEM  OF  DEALING 
WITH,  LABOR  DISPUTES1 

The  Australian  system  of  dealing  with  labor  disputes  and 
of  the  regulation  of  labor  conditions  has  passed  through  many 
changes.  Different  states,  each  with  full  power  of  self-govern¬ 
ment,  have  from  time  to  time  altered  and  amended  their  laws 
according  to  experience.  In  New  Zealand,  for  instance,  the 
Industry  Disputes  Act  has  been  amended  in  some  way  on  an 
average  of  once  every  two  years  since  the  year  1900.  In  New 
South  Wales,  existing  legislation  has  on  three  occasions  been 
practically  repealed,  and  entirely  new  laws  have  been  passed. 
But  in  all  the  states  there  is  a  striking  uniformity  of  essentials. 
The  whole  industrial  system  is  based  on  the  principle  that  the 
relationship  of  employer  and  employe  is  a  matter  of  grave  so¬ 
cial  concern  that  justifies  interference  by  some  centralized 
authorities.  In  other  words,  freedom  of  contract  is  not  now 
unlimited  but  can  only  operate  within  certain  areas  prescribed 
by  law.  The  desire  of  parliaments  has  always  been  to  make 
this  interference  between  employer  and  workman  as  small  as 
possible,  and  the  result  has  been  that  practically  all  indus¬ 
tries  work  today  only  above  minima  which  are  from  time  to 
time  prescribed,  and  during  certain  hours  that  are  fixed  by  law. 

To  understand  the  Australian  system  it  is  necessary  to  real¬ 
ize  that  the  country  generally  has  accepted  three  definite  in¬ 
dustrial  claims  as  now  beyond  dispute.  We  start  off  in  the 
new  era  of  reconstruction  with  concessions  finally  guaranteed 
that  are  the  subject  of  controversy  in  other  countries.  These 
three  fundamentals,  as  I  might  call  them,  are  as  follows : 

1.  The  recognition  of  the  fullest  right  of  workmen  to  organize  for  their 
own  protection,  and  the  right  of  each  union  to  make  the  collective 
bargain  for  the  industry  that  it  represents. 

2.  The  recognition  of  the  eight-hour  day. 

3.  The  recognition  of  the  principle  of  the  living  wage  in  all  indus¬ 
tries — that  is,  the  drawing  of  a  line  below  which  competition  in  the 
labor  market  is  illegal,  but  above  which  ordinary  economic  forces 
come  into  play. 

These  three  concessions  have  been  the  result  of  our  system 
of  industrial  arbitration.  This  system  has  been  arrived  at  by 
two  different  methods  which  have  gradually  converged.  Two 
states  adopted  what  is  known  as  the  wages  board  system,  all 

1  George  Beeby,  Minister  of  Labor  for  New  South  Wales,  in  Survey. 
42:399-401.  June  7,  1919. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


83 


the  others,  what  can  more  accurately  be  described  as  judicial 
arbitration. 

The  wages  board  system  contained  the  minimum  element  of 
compulsion.  Under  it  the  government  of  the  day  had  power, 
within  certain  limits,  to  appoint  a  wages  board  for  an  indus¬ 
try.  This  board  generally  consisted  of  about  six  workmen  and 
six  employers  who  selected  their  own  chairman,  with  provi¬ 
sion  that  the  government  could  provide  a  chairman  in  the  event 
of  failure  of  mutual  selection.  These  boards  were  authorized  to 
declare  a  minimum  standard  for  the  industry  on  hours,  mini¬ 
mum  wages  and  the  conditions  attached  to  juvenile  labor. 
They  originally  applied  only  to  certain  industries  in  which 
women  and  children  were  largely  employed,  such  as  garment 
making,  manufacture  of  ‘confectionery  and  similar  occupations ; 
but  they  were  gradually  extended,  and  in  the  states  which  had 
adopted  this  system  all  manufacturing  industries  gradually 
came  under  regulation.  The  finding  of  the  board  became  a 
common  rule  for  the  industry,  and  any  employer  working  be¬ 
low  the  standard  fixed  was  liable  to  cash  penalties.  That  sys¬ 
tem,  however,  did  not  in  any  way  interfere  with  the  rights  of 
the  workmen  to  take  part  in  a  strike  or  in  any  other  legal 

way  to  force  a  better  bargain  for  his  trade. 

One  of  these  states  which  originally  adopted  wages  boards 
abandoned  the  scheme  and  now  works  under  the  system  of 
judicial  arbitration.  The  wages  board  system  today  operates 
only  in  one  state,  Victoria,  and  its  awards  generally  conform 
to  the  standards  fixed  by  the  arbitration  courts.  The  judicial 
system  was  adopted  originally  in  New  Zealand  and  ultimately, 
with  variations,  by  the  states  of  New  South  Wales,  South 
Australia,  Queensland  and  Western  Australia.  It  leads  to  the 

ultimate  settlement  of  all  industrial  disputes  by  a  court  es¬ 

pecially  appointed,  generally  consisting  of  a  single  judge.  In 
some  cases  the  judge  sits  with  assessors  representing  the  two 
interests,  but  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  the  ultimate  decision  rests 
with  the  judge.  These  judges  operating  in  these  states  and  in 
the  federal  area  conduct  proceedings  much  on  the  same  lines 
as  those  of  a  civil  court.  The  parties  become  litigants,  they 
file  claims  and  replies,  issues  are  joined,  advocates  are  engaged, 
and  elaborate  inquiries  in  open  court  are  held,  evidence  being 
called  in  support  of  cases,  in  the  reply,  in  rejoinder,  in  rebuttal; 
and  in  every  way  the  paraphernalia  of  a  court  is  maintained. 


S4 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Ultimately  the  decision  is  left  to  the  judge  whose  award,  when 
made,  becomes  the  standard  for  the  industry. 

Today  there  is  a  strong  movement  for  a  complete  change 
of  this  system.  It  is  frankly  admitted  by  both  sides  that  its 
effect  has  been  to  keep  workmen  and  employers  apart,  that  a 
vast  amount  of  work  done  by  the  courts  could  be  done  by 
voluntary  conciliation  and  equally  satisfactory  results  reached. 
The  movement  in  Australia  today  is  towards  investigation  of 
industrial  troubles  by  negotiation  rather  than  by  litigation. 

New  Zealand  has  already  altered  its  law  and  makes  it  dif¬ 
ficult  for  the  arbitration  court  to  deal  with  the  case.  Before 
it  can  get  to  the  court  it  must  be  dealt  with  by  a  special  body 
appointed  for  a  district  or  appointed  for  each  individual  dis¬ 
pute.  In  every  way  the  parties  are  urged  and  encouraged  to 
arrive  at  their  own  agreements,  but  in  the  background  the  court 
exists  to  deal  with  the  cases  of  violent  controversy,  particularly 
in  industries  of  a  national  character. 

In  New  South  Wales  a  recent  law  provides  for  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  a  board  of  trade.  This  board  of  trade  consisting  of 
representatives  of  employers  and  workmen  in  equal  numbers, 
with  a  judge  of  the  industrial  court  acting  as  president,  is  en¬ 
trusted  with  the  following,  among  its  other  duties : 

1.  The  fixing  from  year  to  year  of  the  basic  living  wage  applicable  to 
all  adult  male  and  female  labor.  (This  function  does  not  in  any 
way  prevent  arbitration  courts  from  fixing  minima  for  particular  in¬ 
dustries.  .  It  only  restricts  them  from  going  below  the  basic  living 
wage.) 

2.  The  appointment  of  industrial  councils  for  industries. 

3.  The  appointment  of  shop  committees  for  individual  workshops. 

4.  The  general  encouragement  of  a  system  of  industrial  organization 
on  the  lines  of  the  Whitley  scheme. 

5.  The  holding  of  inquiries  on  important  industrial  matters  of  universal 
interest,  and  the  recommendation  to  Parliament  from  time  to  time 
of  legislation. 

6.  The  absolute  control  of  the  conditions  under  which  juvenile  labor 
can  be  employed. 

The  idea  of  this  act  is  gradually  to  transfer  the  whole  sys¬ 
tem  of  industrial  regulation  from  judges  and  industrial  courts  to 
these  industrial  councils  and  shop  committees. 

Power  is  also  given  to  the  government  to  utilize  the  indus¬ 
trial  councils  in  any  future  provision  which  may  be  made  for 
unemployment  insurance.  There  is  strong  opposition  to  main¬ 
tenance  of  any  highly  centralized  fund  dealing  with  insurance 
against  employment  and  equalization  of  wage  pay.  It  is  thought 
that  great  problem  will  be  more  effectively  dealt  with'  if  power 
is  given  to  the  government  to  subsidize  any  fund  which  may 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


85 


be  raised  in  any  industrial  council  for  the  purpose  of  unem¬ 
ployment  insurance. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  a  real  effort  is  being  made 
throughout  the  commonwealth  today  to  move  by  stages  from 
the  old  system  of  industrial  arbitration  to  a  system  based 
somewhat  on  the  Whitley  scheme.  The  legislation  is  so  framed 
as  to  give  the  minister  of  the  day  ample  power  to  encourage 
in  every  way  this  program  of  bringing  employers  and  work¬ 
men  into  close  touch ;  but  the  idea  of  maintaining  some  tribunal 
which  in  the  end  can  fix  minimum  standards  for  an  industry 
in  the  event  of  the  failure  of  negotiations,  is  maintained.  With 
all  its  faults,  the  general  opinion  among  employers  is  that  in 
these  days  of  perpetual  industrial  unrest  it  is  essential  to  have 
some  tribunal  before  which*  parties  in  violent  dispute  can  be 
called,  and  to  force  them  to  adjust  their  differences.  Work¬ 
men  today  are  not  favorable  to  compulsory  arbitration.  They 
believe  that  they  could  have  achieved  bigger  results  by  the  free 
use  of  the  strike  weapon  and  claim  that  restrictions  on  the  right 
to  strike  have  held  them  back.  There  is  some  basis  for  this 
objection  from  their  point  of  view.  Arbitration  has  largely 
improved  the  standards  of  unskilled  labor  and  of  those  clas¬ 
ses  of  workmen  who  in  the  past  have  found  it  difficult  to 
organize.  The  lower  grades  of  labor  clearly  have  received 
very  definite  benefits  from  the  system,  but  the  skilled  mechanic, 
with  the  perpetual  restriction  placed  on  his  right  to  strike,  has 
not  improved  his  standards  in  the  same  proportion.  That  is 
to  say,  the  relative  difference  between  skilled  and  unskilled 
labor  is  not  as  great  today  as  it  was  before  the  systems  were 
adopted. 

These  limitations  on  the  power  to  strike  have  not  in  any 
way  saved  us  from  serious  dislocations.  Workmen  strike  freely 
in  Australia,  in  spite  of  the  law,  and  no  law  can  check  them. 
But  constant  public  investigation  of  industrial  disputes  has  had 
a  very  restrictive  effect.  It  has  prevented  and  has  shortened 
many  strikes.  All  proceedings  in  the  past  have  been  in  open 
court,  and  the  public  has  become  rather  intimately  acquainted 
with  the  nature  of  industrial  relations.  Workmen,  except  those 
who  are  revolutionary  in  tendency,  are  often  engaged  in  analyz¬ 
ing  the  important  question  whether  an  industry  can  stand  some 
increase  which  is  proposed  and,  generally,  the  whole  system  has 
been  of  great  educational  value.  Its  main  weakness,  however, 
has  been  that  it  has  prevented  negotiation  and  has  kept  employ- 


86 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


ers  and  workmen  in  two  definite,  hostile  camps,  always  ready 
to  litigate  but  rarely  in  the  mood  for  conciliation. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  national  parliament,  Con¬ 
gress  as  you  call  it,  has  some  power  over  industrial  matters. 
The  federal  constitution  provides  that  parliament  can  legislate 
for  the  prevention  and  settlement  of  industrial  disputes  extend¬ 
ing  beyond  the  limits  of  any  one  state.  In  pursuance  of  this 
power,  the  federal  court  of  arbitration  has  been  set  up,  and  any 
dispute  which  gets  beyond  the  boundary  of  one  state  can  be, 
and  often  is,  determined  by  this  federal  court.  The  court,  how¬ 
ever,  is  constituted  very  much  on  the  same  lines  as  those  of  dif¬ 
ferent  states  and  generally  adopts  the  same  principles  in  many 
awards.  The  tendency  is  for  unions,  if  possible,  to  make  their 
disputes  go  beyond  the  state  boundary.  They  prefer  the  federal 
tribunal  to  that  of  the  states.  But  in  this  court  the  learned 
judge  who  is  today  its  president  has  not  gone  to  any  material 
extent  above  the  standards  generally  recognized  by  these  state 
tribunals.  He  has  laid  down  one  general  guiding  principle,  and 
the  duty  of  his  court  is  not  to  regulate  the  detailed  workings  of 
an  industry  but  merely  to  provide  for  the  fixing  of  a  reasonable 
standard  of  living  in  the  industry,  leaving  the  complete  manage¬ 
ment  of  the  business  in  the  hands  of  the  employer  and  his  rep¬ 
resentatives. 

There  has  been  much  comment  by  employers  from  time  to 
time  on  different  awards.  There  has  been  considerable  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  whole  system,  but  this  has  gradually  disappeared. 
Very  few  employers  today  ask  for  a  complete  repeal  of  our  in¬ 
dustrial  legislation.  They  welcome  public  investigation  of 
claims  made,  and  they  agree  that  in  a  young  country  which  is 
building  up  its  manufacturing  industries  it  is  better  that  all  em¬ 
ployers  should  be  put  upon  the  same  footing.  No  employer  in 
Australia  can  now  obtain  an  advantage  by  the  use  of  cheap 
labor.  It  is  true  also,  as  the  employers  state,  that  the  fixing  of 
the  minimum  wage  for  the  industry  has  tended  to  inefficiency, 
but  employers  are  not  without  blame  in  this,  when  wages  fixed 
have  been  only  minima.  Most  employers  at  the  outset,  directly 
a  wage  was  fixed,  petulantly  announced  that  all  their  employes 
in  the  future  would  get  the  same  wage  and  abolished  the  varia¬ 
tions  which  previously  existed.  The  result  of  this  general  ap¬ 
plication  of  the  minimum  as  a  standard  wage  undoubtedly  led 
expert  workmen  to  come  down  to  somewhere  near  the  level  of 
the  average  man.  During  recent  years,  however,  many  employ- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


87 


ers  have  accepted  the  awards  of  the  court  only  as  minima  and 
have  higher  wages  in  order  to  get  higher  results. 

There  is  also  a  very  strong  movement  today  to  try  to  intro¬ 
duce  systems  of  payment  on  piece-work  and  payment  by  results, 
but  this  is  bitterly  resisted  by  unionism.  It  is  thought  that  the 
industrial  councils  will  probably  be  able  to  bring  about  some 
change  in  this  direction.  In  the  shipbuilding  industry,  recently 
commenced,  the  New  South  Wales  government  has  succeeded  in 
getting  mechanics,  particularly  those  engaged  in  riveting,  to 
work  on  a  piece-work  basis,  with  proper  guarantees  that  in¬ 
creased  output  will  not  lead  to  reduction  of  piece-work  rates, 
and  also  with  the  provision  that  workmen  shall  not  injure  them¬ 
selves  by  going  beyond  the  ordinary  eight-hour  day’s  work,  ex¬ 
cept  in  cases  of  emergency.  The  result  of  this  change  was  that 
the  output  of  riveters  per  man  was  on  an  average  doubled  with¬ 
in  a  few  weeks,  and  it  is  anticipated  that  even  better  results  can 
be  obtained  without  injury  to  workmen. 

I  discussed  the  whole  of  this  question  with  the  Associated 
chambers  of  manufacturers  of  Australia  some  weeks  ago,  and 
the  gathering  unanimously  agreed  to  the  following  propositions : 

1.  That  a  minimum  standard  of  comfort  prescribed  by  law  was  not  in¬ 
jurious  to  them,  so  long  as  the  detailed  management  of  the  business 
was  left  entirely  to  their  own  judgment. 

2.  That  the  eight-hour  law,  particularly  in  all  industries  in  which  men 
worked  under  cover,  or  in  connection  with  machinery,  should  be  uni 
versally  established. 

3.  That  the  time  had  arrived  for  a  joint  responsibility  of  the  govern¬ 
ment,  the  employer,  and  the  workman,  to  provide  effective  means 
of  insurance  against  unemployment,  sickness  and  accident. 

4.  That  as  a  last  resort  it  was  best,  in  the  interests  of  the  state,  to 
maintain  some  authoritative  system  of  settlement  of  industrial  dis¬ 
putes  in  all  important  industries. 

5.  That  standardized  conditions  for  the  whole  commonwealth,  as  to  the 
condition  of  employment  of  juvenile  labor,  were  advisable. 

I  venture  to  summarize  the  situation  as  follows :  Australia 
will  continue  to  maintain  the  three  fundamentals  mentioned  in 
the  beginning  of  this  statement. 

It  will  continue  to  maintain  some  tribunals  which  will  have 
power  as  a  court  of  ultimate  resort  to  make  an  award  in  settle¬ 
ment  of  industrial  disputes  which  will  be  binding  on  the  parties. 
But  these  tribunals  will  probably  consist  more  of  industrial 
councils,  and  access  to  them  will  be  more  difficult.  There  will 
also  be  created  industrial  councils  for  industries  and  shop  com¬ 
mittees  for  individual  establishments.  And  all  parties  will  be 
compelled  to  negotiate  in  these  councils  on  all  matters  affecting 
industries  before  they  will  get  access  to  a  compulsory  tribunal. 


88 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


A  definite  movement  will  before  long  be  made  in  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  unemployment  insurance,  but  will,  I  think,  be  on  the 
lines  already  indicated ;  that  is,  the  industrial  council  will  be¬ 
come  responsible  for  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  the  fund 
for  its  particular  industry — this  fund  being  liberally  subsidized 
from  the  public  purse.  Industrial  records  of  individual  work¬ 
men  will  be  kept,  and  gradually  those  who  are  unworthy  will  be 
scheduled  and  not  allowed  to  participate  in  any  insurance  fund. 

The  general  control  of  the  whole  scheme  of  industrial  reg¬ 
ulation  will,  I  think,  beyond  doubt  before  very  long  be  cen¬ 
tralized  in  the  national  government.  There  is  a  strong  move¬ 
ment  today  which  is  rapidly  reaching  a  climax  to  vest  this  im¬ 
portant  function  in  a  national  authority  on  the  understanding 
that  it  uses  the  state  machinery  now  in  existence.  Some  uni¬ 
formity  is  essential.  There  is  considerable  conflict  today  be¬ 
tween  different  state  systems  and  the  federal  system,  and  both 
employers  and  workmen  are  in  agreement  that  it  would  be  better 
to  take  the  industrial  power  from  the  hands  of  state  parliaments 
and  invest  it  in  Congress. 


PART  III 

COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 
INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


•V 


/ 


AFFIRMATIVE  DISCUSSION 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION 1 

Strikes  are  a  serious  injury  to  the  public,  cause  enormous 
losses  to  employers  and  employees,  and  often  accomplish  nothing 
for  the  strikers  beyond  blacklisting  and  the  loss  of  opportunity 
to  earn  a  living.  What  is  the  remedy?  Cooperation  will  abol¬ 
ish  strikes,  because  employers,  as  a  separate  class  antagonistic 
to  labor,  will  disappear  and  the  workers  will  become  their  own 
employers.  But  cooperation  does  not  promise  any  immediate 
relief ;  it  is  growing  very  slowly,  and  cannot  be  relied  on  as  a 
present  solution.  Aside  from  cooperation,  the  equitable  methods 
of  avoiding  strikes  are  two :  voluntary  settlement  by  conciliation 
or  mediation;  and  compulsory  settlement  in  courts  having  juris¬ 
diction  of  industrial  questions  under  statutory  regulations  of 
labor  and  capital,  or  under  the  general  principles  of  justice  and 
equity. 

Since  voluntary  methods  do  not  accomplish  the  work,  and 
there  is  no  immediate  prospect  of  their  doing  so,  it  is  clear  that 
at  present  and  probably  for  this  generation  the  question  is  sim¬ 
ply,  strikes  or  labor  courts.  Let  us  examine  the  leading  argu¬ 
ments  that  may  be  advanced  on  each  side  of  the  question. 

i.  Where  mediation  and  conciliation  fail,  compulsory  arbi¬ 
tration  is  demanded  in  the  interests  of  peace, — industrial,  polit¬ 
ical,  and  social  peace.  Violence  and  destruction  are  frequent 
accompaniments  of  strikes.  Here  are  a  few  of  the  facts : 

Massachusetts  railroad  strike,  1834;  riots,  militia  called  out 
to  suppress  the  disturbance. 

Philadelphia  weavers,  1842;  very  disorderly. 

Philadelphia  brickmakers,  1843 »’  much  rioting  and  destruc¬ 
tion  of  property. 

Great  railroad  strike,  1877;  rioting  and  burning,  troops  over¬ 
powered  by  mobs,  twelve  men  killed  at  Baltimore  and  many 
more  at  Pittsburg,  millions  of  property  destroyed. 


1  By  Frank  Parsons.  Arena.  17:  663.  March,  1897. 


92 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Gould  railroad  strike,  1886;  violence  and  destruction. 

New  York  street-car  strike,  1889;  riotous  conduct,  one 
striker  shot. 

Buffalo  strike,  1892;  riots,  troops,  bloodshed,  entire  State 
militia  called  out. 

Homestead  strike,  1892,  riots,  Pinkerton’s  battle,  many  lives 
lost;  much  property  destroyed,  forty  non-union  men  poisoned 
at  their  meals. 

Coal  Creek  Valley  miners,  strike,  Tennessee,  1892;  fighting 
and  burning,  State  troops  called  out. 

Silk  workers’  strike,  Paterson,  N.  J.,  1894;  rioting  and  mob 
violence. 

Great  coal  miners’  strike  in  eleven  states  and  one  territory, 
1894 ;  whole  counties  terrorized,  strikers  intrenched  in  open  in¬ 
surrection,  much  property  destroyed,  troops  powerless  to  pre¬ 
serve  order,  shooting,  eviction,  dynamite  assassination,  kidnap¬ 
ping,  torture,  pitched  battles,  many  lives  lost. 

Chicago  strike,  1894;  mobs,  riots,  troops,  loss  of  life  and 
property. 

Brooklyn  street-car  strike,  1895  1  rioting  and  destruction. 

Philadelphia  street-car  strike,  1895 ;  some  disturbance  and 
destruction. 

One  of  the  objects  of  the  federal  Constitution  is  to  “insure 
domestic  tranquillity.”  Surely  that  object  cannot  be  considered 
accomplished  until  law  is  substituted  for  force  in  the  settlement 
of  labor  troubles.  Even  when  rioting  does  not  occur,  the  dan¬ 
ger  of  violence  that  is  incident  to  every  great  industrial  dispute 
is  in  itself  a  mighty  influence  for  evil.  If  the  parties  will  not 
voluntarily  adopt  a  method  of  settlement  that  does  not  threaten 
the  public  peace,  they  must  be  compelled  to  adopt  it.  The  public 
good  is  the  supreme  law. 

2.  Justice  demands  that  law  be  substituted  for  force  as  a 
means  of  deciding  labor  troubles,  not  merely  for  the  sake  of 
peace  and  safety,  protection  of  life  and  property,  and  securing 
the  business  of  the  community  from  interruption  or  hindrance, 
but  also  for  the  sake  of  fairer  and  more  reasonable  settlements 
between  the  parties  and  the  infusion  of  equity  into  all  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  labor  and  capital. 

Very  often  the  claims  of  workmen  who  strike  are  wholly 
just,  and  few  cases  can  be  found  in  which  their  claims- were  not 
just  in  part  at  the  least.  Almost  always  there  is  a  real  griev- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


93 


ance  that  ought  to  be  redressed,  yet  in  the  majority  of  cases  the 
strikers  are  defeated,  and  fail  to  obtain  relief ;  not  uncommonly 
indeed  they  are  severely  punished  for  venturing  to  ask  for  jus¬ 
tice,  all  who  were  known  to  have  been  active  in  the  strike  being 
discharged  and  blacklisted,  and  the  rest  being  less  favorably 
treated  than  before  the  strike,  to  teach  them  to  be  quiet  in  the 
future,  and  very  likely  discharged  on  the  slightest  pretext  and 
replaced  by  non-union  men. 

The  Pullman  affair  is  a  good  illustration  of  the  failure  of 
strikes  to  secure  justice  for  the  workers.  The  demands  of  the 
men  were  for  the  most  part  fair  and  reasonable;  public  sym¬ 
pathy  was  with  them;  their  cause  was  backed  by  a  tremendous 
sympathetic  strike  on  the.  railways ;  yet  the  struggle  brought 
them  no  redress,  nothing  but  loss. 

At  the  time  of  the  Philadelphia  street-car  strike  in  1895,  the 
men  were  working  twelve  to  fourteen  hours  a  day  for  $2,  were 
unprotected  from  the  weather,  and  were  refused  recognition  as 
an  organization.  They  struck  for  a  ten-hour  day,  vestibules, 
and  recognition.  Public  sympathy  was  all  on  their  side.  Every 
paper  in  the  city  espoused  their  cause,  except  one,  which  was 
controlled  by  traction  interests.  Immense  meetings  of  citizens 
were  held,  and  committees  of  prominent  men  were  appointed  to 
intercede  with  the  companies.  Yet  the  strike  entirely  failed  to 
secure  the  workers  anything  but  loss,  discharge,  and  blacklisting. 

The  recent  strike  of  conductors  and  motormen  in  Boston  is 
another  illustration  of  the  ineffectiveness  of  strikes.  The  men 
were  being  worked  over  ten  hours  a  day  in  violation  of  law, 
they  were  subject  to  arbitrary  discharge  at  the  whim  of  any 
petty  boss,  and  in  case  of  accident  were  laid  off  one,  three, 
sometimes  seven  or  eight  days  during  the  investigation  of  the 
matter,  and  were  obliged  to  lose  this  time  whether  they  proved 
faultless  in  respect  to  the  accident  or  not.  The  demand  of  the 
men  for  better  treatment  in  these  respects  was  eminently  just, 
and  the  public  approved  their  cause,  but  they  failed  to  obtain 
relief.  The  strike  was  not  well  managed,  but,  judging  by  ex¬ 
perience  in  Philadelphia  and  in  other  cities,  it  is  very  improbable 
that  the  men  would  have  secured  their  rights  even  if  they  had 
conducted  the  battle  with  all  possible  skill. 

The  terrible  Coal  Creek  Valley  strike  was  a  revolt  against 
the  employment  of  convict  labor  in  the  mines.  The  strikers 
were  conquered  by  the  troops  and  gained  no  recognition  of  the 


febSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL',  MASS’. 


94 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


very  just  demand  that  the  practice  of  farming  out  prisoners  to 
corporations  should  cease.  The  strike  did  something  however 
toward  bringing  the  Tennessee  system  into  disrepute. 

One  of  the  demands  of  the  telegraphers’  strike  of  1883  was 
that  women  should  receive  the  same  pay  as  men  for  the  same 
work.  Another  was  for  the  abolition  of  Sunday  work  without 
extra  pay;  and  another  for  an  eight-hour  day.  The  strike 
failed,  and  these  just  demands  were  not  complied  with. 

The  record  of  strikes  by  no  means  covers  the  field  of  in¬ 
justice  to  labor;  in  innumerable  cases  the  workers  suffer  in 
silence,  knowing  the  costliness  and  futility  of  strikes.  In  many 
of  these  cases  redress  might  very  likely  be  obtained  if  a  peace¬ 
ful  appeal  to  a  court  of  justice  were  permitted. 

Let  sixty  per  cent  of  the  workers  affected  by  any  griev¬ 
ance  have  the  right  to  bring  the  matter  into  court  on  show¬ 
ing  that  reasonable  effort  in  the  direction  of  conciliation  and 
voluntary  arbitration  has  been  made  and  has  failed  to  afford 
redress.  If  either  employers  or  employed  do  not  desire  to 
leave  the  decision  with  the  court,  let  the  workers  choose  one 
arbitrator,  the  employees  another,  and  these  two  a  third, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  court,  (which  represents  the  in¬ 
terests  of  the  community);  let  the  award  of  this  board  of 
arbitrators  stand  on  the  same  footing  as  a  judgment  of  the 
court  and  be  enforced  in  the  same  way.  Do  this  and  make 
strikes  unlawful,  and  you  have  gone  a  great  way  toward 
substituting  reason  for  might  in  deciding  the  rights  of  labor 
and  capital. 

Not  only  the  workers  and  the  general  public  would  be 
benefited,  but  there  would  be  a  corresponding  gain  to  capital, 
which  is  also  a  heavy  loser  by  strikes,  and  does  at  times 
submit  to  imposition  and  grant  unjust  demands  rather  than 
risk  the  consequence  of  a  rupture.  This  is  especially  apt  to 
be  so  where  employees  take  advantage  of  the  fact  that  their 
employers  are  under  contract  with  third  persons  to  perform 
a  given  service  in  a  specified  time. 

In  whatever  way  it  is  regarded,  judgment  by  court  is  a 
better  means  of  arriving  at  justice  and  equity  than  judgment 
by  wager  of  battle.  In  respect  to  justice  the  decision  of  an 
impartial  tribunal  will  have  the  same  superiority  over- private 
settlement  by  conflict  in  the  case  of  disputes  between  cor¬ 
porations  and  their  employees  as  in  case  of  disputes  between 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


95 


man  and  man,  or  state  and  state.  Heat  and  passion, 
greed  and  strength,  are  not  the  champions  of  equity.  The 
prize  ring  does  not  concern  itself  with  right.  The  battlefield 
is  not  the  place  to  look  for  justice. 

The  federal  Constitution  reflects  the  thought  and  experi¬ 
ence  of  the  civilized  world  in  the  statement  that  the  first 
object  of  government  is  “to  establish  justice.”  Surely  gov¬ 
ernments  instituted  to  establish  justice  should  endeavor  to 
prevent  the  continuance  of  anything  so  inimical  to  justice  as 
the  strike.  And  if  society  takes  from  labor  what  is  often 
to-day  its  sole  defense  against  capitalistic  aggression, — if 
society  forbids  the  strike,  as  indeed  it  does  already  through 
the  injunction  of  its  Federal  courts  whenever  the  combat 
threatens  to  hinder  the  mails  or  interfere  with  interstate 
commerce, — then  it  is  surely  the  duty  of  society  to  give  to 
labor  another  means  of  defense  as  good  or  better  than  the 
one  that  it  has  taken  away;  and  the  only  method  of  doing 
this  at  the  present  stage  of  social  development  is  to  establish 
industrial  arbitration,  with  the  power  of  the  law  behind  it  to 
enforce  whatever  decisions  may  be  rendered. 

3.  Economy  demands  the  arbitrament  of  law  in  place  of 
the  arbitrament  of  conflict.  In  the  railway  strike  of  1877  the 
loss  to  property  and  business  inflicted  by  the  mob  at  Pitts¬ 
burg  alone  is  estimated  at  $5,000,000,  and  the  county  of  Alle¬ 
gheny  was  compelled  to  pay  $2,787,000  of  the  loss  sustained 
during  the  Pittsburg  riots.  The  Chicago  strike  cost  the 
railways  $5,358,000,  and  the  employees  $1,700,000,  a  total  of 
$7,058,000,  not  including  the  loss  to  the  Pullman  Company. 
The  National  Commission  says  that  “beyond  these  amounts 
very  great  losses,  widely  distributed,  were  incidentally  suf¬ 
fered  throughout  the  country.”  The  California  fruit-growers, 
for  example,  lost  $50,000  a  day.  The  total  loss  which  re¬ 
sulted  from  that  one  strike,  in  all  probability  exceeded 
$10,000,000.  The  telegraph  strike  of  1883  cost  the  companies 
$909,000,  and  the  men  $250,000.  The  railway  strike  on  the 
“Gould  system”  in  1886  cost  the  strikers  $900,000,  those 
thrown  out  of  employment  by  their  action  $500,000,  and  the 
railroads,  $3,180,000. 

For  the  strikes  that  occurred  from  1881  to  1886,  inclusive, 
the  wage  loss  by  the  employees  is  estimated  by  the  United 
States  Commissioner  of  Labor  at  $51,814,000,  and  the  em- 


g6 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


ployers’  losses  are  estimated  by  the  same  authority  at 
$30,701,000.  And  the  trouble  is  not  growing  less  as  the 
years  go  by.  From  1741  to  1880,  inclusive,  there  were  1,491 
strikes  and  lockouts,  while  for  the  six  years  ending  Decem¬ 
ber  31,  1886,  the  number  of  strikes  alone  was  3,902, — forty 
a  year  for  the  first  period,  and  over  six  hundred  and  fifty  a 
year  for  the  second.  Making  all  due  allowance  for  fuller 
reporting  of  strikes  in  the  later  period,  the  contrast  is  still 
a  startling  one. 

Surely  it  is  cheaper  as  well  as  more  just  to  settle  by  court 
than  by  strike.  At  present  we  pay  for  the  strike  first;  then 
we  pay  for  a  commission  to  examine  into  its  causes  and  re¬ 
sults;  let  us  have  the  inquiry  first  and  save  the  expense  of 
the  strike. 

4.  Manhood  also  demands  arbitration  instead  of  war. 
Conflict  debases  both  the  victor  and  the  victim.  Every  time 
deliberation  is  substituted  for  passion  and  force,  a  gain  for 
character-development  is  made. 

5.  It  will  modify  and  limit  the  despotic  powers,  of  un¬ 
scrupulous  corporations,  and  so  tend  to  prevent  oppression, 
ameliorate  the  condition  of  labor,  and  secure  a  better  dif¬ 
fusion  of  wealth. 

6.  It  will  tend  to  secure  the  stability  of  our  republic  and 
the  perpetuity  of  free  institutions,  by  effecting  greater  har¬ 
mony  in  the  relations  of  employers  and  employed,  and 
eliminating  some  of  the  injustices,  antagonisms,  and  conflicts 
that  cause  the  development  of  dangerous  animosities  be¬ 
tween  labor  and  capital,  and  feed  the  growth  of  anarchy. 

7.  The  argument  from  history  and  the  trend  of  civiliza¬ 
tion.  The  tendency  of  advancing  civilization  is  all  in  the 
direction  of  substituting  the  compulsion  of  courts  of  justice 
for  other  private  compulsion  of  individuals  or  groups  of  in¬ 
dividuals.  In  primitive  times  the  settlement  of  disputes  of 
every  sort  was  a  private  matter.  If  one  man  wronged 
another,  or  a  disagreement  arose  as  to  rights,  the  parties 
fought  out  the  difficulty  alone,  or  with  such  help  as  their 
friends  might  grant.  Men  early  found  that  this  method  did 
not  insure  justice  and  was  inimical  to  the  public  peace,  so 
they  established  courts  of  justice,  with  power  to  compel  the 
arbitration  of  disputes,  in  order  that  their  decisions  might  be 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


97 


by  cool,  impartial  intelligence,  instead  of  by  heat  and  pas¬ 
sion,  strength  and  cunning. 

We  compel  the  arbitration  of  disputes  between  man  and 
man,  between  States,  between  individuals  and  States,  and 
we  are  about  to  establish  a  court  of  arbitration  for  the  settle¬ 
ment  of  disputes  between  nation  and  nation,  but  disputes  be¬ 
tween  a  corporation  and  its  employees  are  left  to  the  prim¬ 
itive  method  of  barbaric  conflict. 

Under  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  we  are  trying  to  do  away  with  war  between  nation 
and  nation  by  creating  an  International  Court  of  Arbitration. 
When  the  chief  nations  of  the  world  come  into  the  move¬ 
ment,  send  their  representatives,  and  stand  behind  its  de¬ 
crees,  we  shall  have  compulsory  arbitration  of  national  dif¬ 
ficulties  by  means  of  judicial  decision  in  a  court  of  recog¬ 
nized  authority,  instead  of  compulsory  arbitration  by  war. 
That  is  an  object  worthy  the  earnest  efforts  of  the  highest 
statesmanship;  but  is  it  not  equally  incumbent  upon  our 
statesmen  to  make  an  effort  to  abolish  civil  war  between 
great  corporations  and  their  employees  by  establishing 
courts  to  arbitrate  their  differences? 

Common  sense  demands  the  application  to  industrial  dis¬ 
putes  of  the  same  principles  that  are  applied  to  other  dis¬ 
putes.  If  A  and  B  get  to  fighting  in  the  street  they  are 
brought  before  a  court  of  justice  and  informed  that  they 
have  subjected  themselves  to  the  penalties  of  the  law;  that 
as  long  as  they  remain  in  civilized  society  they  will  not  be 
allowed  to  settle  their  difficulties  by  battle;  that  courts  are 
established  on  purpose  to  do  justice  between  them;  and  that 
if  they  cannot  agree  they  may  appeal  to  the  courts,  but  must 
not  resort  to  combat.  Why  should  a  corporation  and  its 
employes  be  permitted  to  fight  out  their  quarrels  in  the 
streets  to  the  disturbance  of  the  peace,  the  interference  with 
business,  the  destruction  of  life  and  property,  and  the 
annihilation  of  justice?  Every  reason  that  applies  in  the 
former  case  for  putting  decision  by  court  in  the  place  of  de¬ 
cision  by  force,  applies  in  the  latter  with  redoubled  force. 

If  A  and  B  cannot  be  left  to  fight  out  their  quarrels,  nor 
Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania  and  New 
York,  Turkey  and  Armenia,  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States, — if  individuals  and  states  and  nations  must  submit 


98 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


to  compulsory  arbitration  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  justice 
and  liberty,  why  should  a  corporation  and  its  employees  be 
permitted  to  settle  their  quarrels  by  war  in  the  heart  of  a 
giant  city? 

The  substitution  of  peaceful,  impartial,  and  intelligent  jus¬ 
tice  for  the  turmoil,  injustice  and  destructiveness  of  private 
conflict  is  one  of  the  distinguishing  marks  of  a  high  civiliza¬ 
tion.  It  is  time  we  extended  the  idea  of  the  impartial  admin¬ 
istration  of  justice  to  the  sphere  of  industrial  difficulties. 
Compulsory  arbitration  of  labor  disputes  means  simply  the 
extension  of  the  control  of  law  and  order  over  a  field  which, 
up  to  the  present  time,  has  been  left  to  chaos. 

8.  Experience  in  France,  Belgium  and  New  Zealand 
shows  that  compulsory  arbitration  of  labor  difficulties  is  a 
marked  success  in  practice,  a  success  that  need  not  be  afraid 
of  comparison  with  the  results  of  administering  justice  by 
tribunal  in  other  relations  of  life  usually  subjected  to  judicial 
regulation  in  civilized  communities. 

In  France  and  Belgium  compulsory  arbitration  has  been 
for  years  an  assured  and  successful  fact;  and  in  1894  a  strong 
compulsory  arbitration  law  was  adopted  in  New  Zealand, 
the  most  progressive,  in  many  respects,  of  all  the  British 
colonies.  In  England  the  laws  of  1824  and  1837  provided  for 
compulsory  arbitration  in  certain  cases,  but  the  laws  were 
not  comprehensive  enough  to  be  really  useful. 

The  most  famous  examples  of  tribunals  established  by 
law  for  the  compulsory  arbitration  of  labor  troubles  are  the 
French  “Conseils  des  Prud’hommes.”  The  parties  may  sub¬ 
mit  their  differences  to  arbitration  voluntarily.  If  they  do 
not,  then,  after  an  attempt  to  reach  an  agreement  has  failed, 
the  tribunal  compels  arbitration,  and  the  award  is  enforced 
the  same  as  the  judgment  of  any  other  court  of  law. 

Each  council  consists  of  eight  members  or  more,  elected 
for  three  years — half  elected  by  the  workmen  in  its  jurisdic¬ 
tion,  and  half  by  the  employers.  Every  question  is  within 
the  compulsory  jurisdiction  except  future  rates  of  wages, 
which  are  only  within  the  voluntary  jurisdiction.  As  we 
shall  see  later,  there  is  no  valid  reason  why  the  compulsory 
jurisdiction  may  not  be  extended  to  the  wage-rate;  but  even 
without  it,  there  is  a  vast  work  left  for  compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion  to  do  In  France  88  per  cent  of  the  cases  failing  of  con- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


99 


ciliation  are  dealt  with  on  the  compulsory  side  of  the  court. 
In  this  country  more  than  57  per  cent  of  the  strikes  involve 
questions  that  would  be  subject  to  the  compulsory  jurisdic¬ 
tion  of  a  court  like  the  French  Council,  that  is,  57  per  cent 
of  our  strikes  involve  other  questions  than  the  wage-rate. 

The  French  Labor  Report  for  1893  says  that  the  “con- 
seils”  have  an  average  of  41,000  cases  a  year.  In  1893,  8,982 
cases  were  settled  and  withdrawn  before  decision;  16,231 
were  conciliated;  and  11,948  were  dealt  with  under  compul¬ 
sory  jurisdiction.  The  report  also  says  that  these  courts 
are  characterized  by  speedy  adjudication  and  a  very  in¬ 
expensive  procedure.  The  total  cost,  even  in  extreme  cases, 
where  distraining  is  necessary  cannot  exceed  $8.72.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  extract  from  the  French  report  just  mentioned  is 
specially  worthy  of  note: 

The  people  are  certainly  right  in  attributing  to  the  councils  of  ex¬ 
perts  the  relative  tranquility  which  industry  in  France  has  enjoyed  in 
the  present  century.  They  have  prevented  many  strikes  by  assuring  to 
workpeople  a  competent  adjudication,  speedy,  and  inexpensive. 

9.  Authority  of  the  highest  character  favors  compulsory 
arbitration.  For  example,  Francis  A.  Walker  speaks  of 
strikes  as  “the  insurrection  of  labor.”  and  in  his  “Political 
Economy”  says:  “It  is  a  shame  for  us  as  a  people  that  we 
have  not  yet  made  for  ourselves  a  better  way  out  of  indus¬ 
trial  disputes.”  The  National  Farmers’  Congress  and  the 
New  York  Society  for  Political  Education  favor  the  move¬ 
ment,  and  labor  organizations  as  a  rule  heartily  endorse  it. 
The  London  Chamber  of  Arbitration,  a  board  of  mediation, 
has  recently  recommended,  as  the  result  of  its  study  and  ex¬ 
perience,  that  a  compulsory  jurisdiction  be  added  to  the  con¬ 
ciliatory  jurisdiction. 

A  number  of  objections  more  or  less  serious  may  be 
raised  against  compulsory  arbitration. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  it  may  be  urged  that  it  is  an  in¬ 
fringement  of  liberty. 

This,  of  course,  is  not  conclusive,  for  every  law  on  the 
statute  book  is  an  infringement  of  somebody’s  liberty.  Com¬ 
pulsory  education  is  an  infringement  of  liberty.  Legislative 
acts  fixing  rates  to  be  charged  by  railways,  grain  elevators, 
water  companies,  telephone  companies,  etc.,  constitute  in¬ 
fringements  of  liberty,  yet  all  these  things  are  justified  by 
reason  and  experience.  The  same  statement  is  true  of  laws 


100 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


prescribing  the  height  and  the  materials  of  buildings,  laws 
against  carrying  arms,  prohibiting  nuisances,  all  sorts  of 
regulations  to  secure  the  public  health  and  safety.  The  ques¬ 
tion  is  not  whether  a  measure  is  an  infringement  of  liberty, 
but  whether  it  is  a  justifiable  infringement.  The  liberty  of 
the  individual  must  yield  to  the  public  good;  liberty  to  do 
wrong  must  be  curtailed  in  order  that  there  may  be  more 
liberty  to  do  right.  Liberty  to  buy  labor  in  competitive  mar¬ 
ket,  at  a  price  and  on  conditions  that  would  not  be  accepted 
but  for  the  duress  of  necessity,  is  a  liberty  to  buy  manhood 
as  a  commodity,  and  is  a  liberty  to  which  no  one  in  America 
has  a  right  since  the  proclamation  of  emancipation.  Such 
a  liberty  is  inimical  to  the  elevation  of  labor  and  the  best 
development  of  our  citizenship;  it  is  a  liberty  to  buy  slaves 
by  the  day  under  compulsion  of  their  necessities,  which  is 
near  akin  to  the  liberty  to  buy  slaves  for  life  under  compul¬ 
sion  of  other  external  circumstances,  a  liberty  that  was  shot 
to  death  in  the  great  war. 

The  liberty  of  the  employer  to  oppress  the  employee  is 
diminished  in  order  that  the  liberty  of  the  employee  to 
secure  justice  and  work  under  fair  conditions  may  be  in¬ 
creased.  The  latter  liberty  cannot  be  increased  without 
diminishing  the  former  liberty,  and  the  latter  liberty  is  the 
more  worthy.  It  is  a  question  of  the  diffusion  of  liberty. 
Shall  the  employer  have  more  than  his  share,  all  that  his 
power  and  advantage  can  secure?  That  is  a  principle  which 
would  justify  murder  and  arson,  and  the  abolition  of  all  laws 
against  crime  or  tortious  conduct.  Or  shall  the  liberties  of 
the  case  be  equitably  distributed,  and  subject  to  judicial  de¬ 
termination,  so  that  each  party  may  have  his  fair  share,  and 
no  more?  That  is  the  principle  on  which  is  based  the  law 
and  equity  of  the  civilized  world,  and  it  is  a  principle  that 
justifies  the  compulsory  arbitration  of  labor  disputes. 

Strikes  involve  a  far  greater  interference  with  freedom 
than  the  proposed  substitute.  Strikes  infringe  the  liberties 
of  employers,  employees,  and  the  public;  and  the  infringe¬ 
ment  is  guided  by  force  and  passion  instead  of  reason, 
wherefore  it  is  much  more  apt  to  be  an  unjust  infringement 
than  compulsory  arbitration  is  likely  to  be.  The  infringe¬ 
ment  of  liberty  by  compulsory  arbitration  is  less  in  quantity 
than  in  the  case  of  strikes,  and  infinitely  superior  in  quality, 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


IOI 


being  a  curtailment  merely  of  freedom  which  is  bad,  and 
to  which  no  one  has  a  right,— freedom  to  be  unjust,  freedom 
to  conquer  a  weak  adversary,  freedom  to  endanger  the  pub¬ 
lic  peace  and  safety. 

The  objection  to  compulsory  arbitration  on  the  ground 
that  it  infringes  liberty  is  largely  due  to  the  name.  If  we 
called  the  ordinary  administration  of  justice,  “compulsory 
arbitration  of  contracts,  damages,  and  obligations  in  gen¬ 
eral,”  it  would  sound  just  as  antagonistic  to  liberty.  If  we 
belonged  to  a  colony  about  to  establish  courts  of  justice  in 
place  of  the  private  settlement  of  disputes  between  man  and 
man,  we  should  be  met  by  the  same  objection,  that  it  would 
curtail  our  liberty, — the  liberty  of  the  strong  to  oppress  the 
weak.  If  we  call  this  measure  for  the  compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion  of  labor  difficulties  by  its  true  name, — the  admin¬ 
istration  of  justice  in  labor  disputes, — we  remove  at  once 
the  chief  foundation  of  this  objection. 

How  completely  the  objections  to  compulsory  arbitration 
arise  from  an  indiscriminate  dislike  of  any  new  measure,  that 
bears  its  compelling  character  in  its  title,  may  be  seen  in  the 
fact  that  no  one  questions  the  advantages  of  arbitration;  it 
is  only  about  compulsion  that  we  differ.  If  the  parties  to  a 
dispute  will  voluntarily  submit  their  difference  to  arbitration, 
and  live  up  to  the  award,  everyone  agrees  that  this  is  the 
best  possible  method  of  dealing  with  the  difficulty.  But 
when  the  parties  refuse  to  do  this,  as  is  usually  the  case,  and 
insist  on  settling  their  disagreements  by  means  of  strikes, 
boycotts,  and  other  sorts  of  industrial  combat,  which  fre¬ 
quently  involve  enormous  cost,  obstruction  of  business,  sus¬ 
pension  of  industry,  disturbance  of  the  peace,  destruction  of 
life  and  property,  serious  injustice  to  workingmen,  wide¬ 
spread  discontent,  sullen  return  to  labor  under  conditions 
and  contracts  forced  upon  them  by  want,  and  the  antagon¬ 
isms  and  debasements  of  character  that  come  from  conflict, — 
then  the  question  arises  whether  it  is  not  best  to  require  the 
parties  to  submit  their  differences  to  an  impartial  tribunal, 
instead  of  fighting  them  out  on  the  street;  whether,  when 
conciliation  fails,  it  is  not  better  that  the  difficulty  should  be 
settled  according  to  principles  of  equity,  by  compulsion  act¬ 
ing  through  a  court  of  justice  upon  both  parties  equally, 
rather  than  according  to  principles  of  greed  and  passion,  and 


102 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


by  compulsion  of  one  party  by  the  other.  Where  concilia¬ 
tion  fails,  compulsion  of  one  kind  or  the  other  must  decide 
the  contest.  We  have  to  choose  between  compulsion  of  the 
weaker  party  by  the  stronger,  and  a  compulsion  found  to  be 
in  the  wrong,  after  a  careful  hearing  and  impartial  delibera¬ 
tion  by  a  disinterested  tribunal.  We  believe  the  latter  best 
for  reasons  already  given. 

2.  But  we  are  told  that  it  is  impracticable  to  fix  wages 
for  the  future,  and  that  it  would  be  unjust,  because  the 
award  can  be  enforced  only  against  the  employer;  the  em¬ 
ployees  may  leave  if  the  wages  do  not  suit  them. 

Well,  even  if  we  leave  the  wage-rate  out  of  court,  there 
is  still  a  great  deal  for  compulsory  arbitration  to  do,  as  we 
have  already  seen.  But  in  truth  there  is  no  need  to  leave 
it  out.  So  far  is  it  from  impracticable,  that  the  fact  is, 
wages  are  continually  fixed  for  the  future.  The  bulk  of  our 
business  is  based  on  such  settlements.  If  a  sliding  scale  is 
adopted,  wages  may  safely  be  fixed  for  considerable  periods 
in  advance,  and  are  so  fixed  to-day.  The  only  question  is, 
whether  this  shall  be  done  by  force  or  by  the  judgment  of 
court.  Which  is  the  more  likely  to  err?  Which  is  the  more 
likely  to  be  lived  up  to?  The  employees  are  not  bound  to 
continue  at  the  wages  fixed  by  a  strike  or  by  voluntary  arbi¬ 
tration.  In  practice,  it  will  probably  be  found  that  they 
will  be  satisfied  with  the  wage-rate  fixed  by  the  court  of 
arbitration.  It  m ay  not  be  all  they  asked  for,  but  it  will  in 
most  cases  be  likely  to  be  an  improvement  on  what  they 
could  get  without  arbitration,  or,  problematically,  by  a  dis¬ 
astrous  strike. 

The  possible  want  of  mutuality  is  not  a  serious  matter. 
There  is  certainly  no  more  lack  of  it  than  in  the  case  of  fix¬ 
ing  hours  or  charges.  The  question  is  at  best  theoretic 
rather  than  practical.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  getting  men 
at  the  wages  offered  by  the  companies,  and  there  will  not 
be  any  difficulty  in  getting  them  at  the  wages  fixed  by  a 
court  or  commission,  so  that  the  lack  of  power  to  compel 
men  to  work  at  the  wages  fixed  does  not  practically  de¬ 
tract  from  the  reciprocal  character  of  the  award,  to  say 
nothing  of  other  considerations.  Even  were  the.  reciprocal 
element  entirely  lacking,  it  would  not  exclude  the  measure. 
This  element  is  lacking  in  many  contracts  sustained  by  the 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


103 


law,  those,  namely,  which  constitute  a  title  of  contract  law 
called  “unilateral  contracts.” 

In  any  case,  if  they  do  not  stay,  it  is  clear  the  wages  are 
too  low,  and  the  employer  must  raise  them  if  he  wishes  to 
keep  his  men.  The  court  merely  fixes  the  limit  below  which 
the  employer  must  not  go.  He  may  pay  more,  must  pay 
more  if  his  workmen  find  they  can  do  better  elsewhere. 
There  is  no  substantial  lack  of  mutuality.  The  employer 
is  not  compelled  to  continue  doing  business,  and  the  em¬ 
ployee  is  not  compelled  to  continue  working. 

If  the  employer  cannot  make  the  business  pay  at  the 
wages  demanded,  because  of  low  wages  in  his  business  else¬ 
where,  or  for  other  causC  beyond  his  control,  he  should 
bring  his  books  and  his  evidence  into  court  and  prove  the 
fact,  and  the  court  will  be  careful  not  to  put  the  wage-rate 
where  it  would  destroy  the  employer’s  business,  recommend¬ 
ing,  if  need  be,  such  general  legislation  as  would  afifect  the 
whole  trade  and  lift  wages  to  a  proper  level  without  injus¬ 
tice  to  individual  employers. 

In  dealing  with  monopolies,  such  as  gas  and  electric 
plants,  street  railways,  and  other  quasi-public  industries,  this 
difficulty  will  not  in  most  cases  be  apt  to  rise.  The  adjust¬ 
ment  of  wages  would  not  be  complicated  by  questions  of 
competition. 

No  method  short  of  cooperation  can  deal  with  the  wage 
question  in  a  fully  satisfactory  manner.  Compulsory  arbi¬ 
tration  is  simply  the  best  method  attainable  until  coopera¬ 
tion  comes. 

3.  It  is  said  that  governmental  fixing  of  rates  and  wages 
amounts  to  confiscation;  that  conciliation  and  mediation  are 
better  than  compulsory  arbitration;  that  a  court  or  commis¬ 
sion  can  be  empowered  to  examine  the  cause  and  justice  of 
each  industrial  dispute  at  its  inception,  fix  the  responsibility, 
and  leave  public  opinion  to  compel  redress;  that,  whatever 
may  be  thought  of  the  general  philosophy  of  individual  lib¬ 
erty^,  and  its  limitation  by  law,  the  right  of  free  contract  is 
a  settled  principle  in  our  jurisprudence,  and  an  employer  has 
a  right  to  fix  the  terms  on  which  he  will  employ  labor,  with¬ 
out  dictation  from  anyone;  that  compulsory  arbitration  will 
entail  recognition  of  trades  unions  and  the  right  to  continued 
employment;  and  that  it  will  delay  more  vital  reforms  by 


104 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


alleviating  to  some  extent  the  discontent  of  labor.  To  these 
and  other  objections  the  curious  may  find  an  answer  in  the 
American  Fabian  for  March,  1897. 

On  the  whole,  it  appears  to  the  writer,  that  a  strong  in¬ 
dustrial  jurisdiction  will  be  of  great  advantage  in  preventing 
strikes  and,  in  many  cases,  lockouts  also,  in  bringing  em¬ 
ployers  and  employed  together  in  mutual  conference  and 
equality  instead  of  in  the  relation  of  servitude,  in  promoting 
mutual  confidence  and  respect,  and  in  preparing  the  way  for 
a  nobler  industrial  system  than  any  the  world  has  yet  seen. 


ADDRESS  OF  WILLIAM  ALLEN  WHITE  TO 
THE  KANSAS  LEGISLATURE,  JANUARY,  1920 

Every  age,  every  century  and  within  these  modern  times, 
every  decade,  sees  some  business  or  interest  formerly  con¬ 
sidered  private  business  or  private  interest  taken  over  in  the 
public  interest.  Two  hundred  years  ago  when  a  gentleman 
had  a  quarrel  with  another  gentleman  it  was  supposed  to  be 
a  private  quarrel  which  should  be  settled  under  a  private 
code  called  “dueling,”  but  too  many  interested  bystanders 
were  injured  and  dueling  was  stopped. 

What  was  once  a  gentleman’s  right,  a  very  private  per¬ 
sonal  right  became  a  public  matter,  tmd  dueling  was  stopped 
in  the  interest  of  the  public.  Time  was  when  a  quarrel  be¬ 
tween  a  slave  and  his  master  was  a  private  matter  and  the 
master  had  private  rights  with  his  slave.  That  was  stopped. 
Time  was  when  a  man’s  money  invested  in  bank  stocks  or 
railroads  was  considered  private  money.  It  was  considered 
private  infringement  of  private  rights  to  interfere  with  that 
money,  but  government  affected  all  money  invested  in  banks 
and  public  utilities  with  public  interests  and  regulated  and 
controlled  that  money  in  the  interest  of  the  public  and  took 
away  personal  rights  for  the  public  good. 

The  pirate’s  right  was  once  a  private  right,  but  that  right 
was  removed  for  the  public  good,  and  now  when  labor  and 
capital  engage  in  a  brawl  which  threatens  daily  processes  of 
civilization  we  are  taking  away  the  right  to  that  brawl  and 
saying  the  quarrel  must  be  settled  in  public  interest. 

Now,  the  chief  interest  which  the  public  has  in  this 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


105 


quarrel  between  labor  and  capital  is  the  interest  of  justice  to 
each.  Government  demands  that  every  man  participating  in 
government  shall  do  so  intelligently.  To  do  so  intelligently 
he  must  have  time  and  opportunity  in  his  youth  for  an  edu¬ 
cation,  leisure  in  his  manhood  for  information  and  reflection 
and  steady  employment  to  teach  him  habits  of  thrift  and  give 
him  a  stake  in  the  country. 

The  public  in  establishing  wages  will  be  interested,  not  in 
labor  as  a  commodity,  but  in  labor  as  a  citizen,  and  in  ten 
years  the  labor  unions  will  look  back  to  this  step  of  the 
Kansas  legislature  as  the  day  that  heralded  the  emancipation 
of  American  labor.  The  public  is  interested  in  capital 

,  a 

chiefly,  to  see  that  capital  gets  justice,  that  it  has  a  fair  re¬ 
turn  and  a  profit  sufficiently  large  to  encourage  enterprise, 
which  is  our  God-given  gift,  the  gift  which  distinguishes 
America  from  all  the  world,  and  by  trusting  to  the  public, 
that  is  to  say,  trusting  to  the  organized  forces  of  society  in 
government,  to  adjudicate  wages,  capital  will  find  a  just  and 
equitable  bureau,  or  court,  or  commission,  or  what  you  will, 
and  in  ten  years  capital  will  regard  this  day  as  the  beginning 
of  a  new  era  in  its  organization. 

We  are  not  trying  to  throttle  capital  and  labor  in  Kansas, 
but  to  emancipate  them  from  their  own  strangle  hold  upon 
each  other,  and  to  establish  an  equitable  and  living  relation 
between  them. 


THE  CUMMINS’  BILL1 

I  have  now,  with  one  exception,  completed  my  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  bill  before  the  Senate.  That  exception  is  the 
part  of  the  bill  which  proposes  that  the  government  shall 
adjudicate  the  disputes  which  may  arise  between  employees 
of  railway  companies  and  the  corporations,  and  which  for¬ 
bids  a  conspiracy  or  combination  for  the  purpose  of  prevent¬ 
ing  the  movement  of  commodities  in  interstate  commerce. 

I  venture  to  say  that  no  provision  in  any  bill  submitted 
to  Congress  in  recent  years  has  been  more  generally  dis¬ 
cussed  throughout  the  country  than  the  one  to  which  I  have 
just  referred.  There  are  some  very  extravagant  praises  for 

1  Speech  of  Hon.  A.  B.  Cummins  in  the  United  States  Senate,  Decem¬ 
ber  4,  19x9. 


io6 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


it;  there  are  some  very  unjust  denunciations  of  it.  I  look 
upon  it  as  a  vital  part  not  only  of  this  bill  but  a  vital  part 
of  our  policy  in  the  future  so  far  as  the  basic  industries  of 
America  are  concerned.  The  committee  has  endeavored  to 
find  a  solution  of  one  of  the  most  complicated  and  difficult 
problems  ever  presented  to  a  legislative  body.  I  am  not 
prepared  to  affirm  that  the  committee  has  discovered  the 
only  solution,  and  I  am  sure  its  members  will  be  very  glad 
to  receive  from  senators  any  suggestions  that  may  make 
the  arrangement  which  we  have  provided  for  more  just  or 
more  efficient;  but  I  speak  for  substantially  every  member  of 
the  committee,  a  very  large  majority  of  the  committee,  when 
I  say  that  it  is  our  profound  conviction  that  the  civilization 
of  America — I  was  about  to  say  the  civilization  of  the  world 
— can  not  continue,  can  not  endure  unless  organized  society 
can  find  some  plan  to  preserve  industrial  peace  and  order. 
To  me  the  thought  that  to  accomplish  justice  for  those  who 
may  be  interested  in  any  dispute  it  is  necessary  to  either 
freeze  or  starve  the  American  people  is  unthinkable  and  in¬ 
tolerable. 

I  have  always,  I  believe,  entertained  for  men  who  worked 
not  sympathy — for  men  who  work  need  no  sympathy — but 
I  believe  that  I  have  always  held  for  them  the  keenest  in¬ 
terest  in  the  struggles  in  which  they  have  been  engaged  and 
the  most  sanguine  hope  of  their  ultimate  success  in  obtain¬ 
ing  the  justice  to  which  I  believe  they  are  entitled.  But  that 
does  not  settle  this  controversy. 

Look  at  the  situation  now.  I  received  a  telegram  this 
morning  from  one  of  the  important  cities  in  my  state  in 
which  it  was  stated  that  the  schools  had  all  been  closed; 
that  the  churches  had  all  been  closed;  that  every  industrial 
enterprise  had  ceased — and  it  is  a  city  of  25,000  people  or 
more — and  that  if  relief  were  not  given  in  furnishing  fuel 
before  Saturday  night  there  would  be  hundreds  of  homes  in 
the  community  without  heat.  Our  government  is  a  failure 
if  there  can  be  found  no  way  to  surmount  an  obstacle  of 
that  kind;  our  government  is  worse  than  a  failure  if  we 
can  not  in  some  way  preserve  the  continuity  and  the  regu¬ 
larity  with  which  our  basic  operations  are  carried  on. 

The  committee  were  deeply  impressed  with  that  feeling 
and  we  recognized  that  transportation  is  the  basic  industry 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


107 


of  the  nation.  It  may  not  be  more  important  from  one  as¬ 
pect  than  many  others,  but  none  of  the  others  can  be  con¬ 
ducted  or  carried  on  without  transportation.  Leave  New 
York  without  transportation  for  two  weeks  and  thousands 
of  people  will  either  starve  or  freeze,  according  to  the  sea¬ 
son;  indeed,  they  may  do  both.  What  I  say  of  New  York  is 
true  of  Philadelphia,  of  Chicago,  and  of  every  great  center 
of  population. 

We  can  not  contemplate  that  situation  with  any  com¬ 
placency  at  all.  If  we  can  not  find  some  way  in  which  to 
avoid  a  contingency  of  that  kind,  then  our  boasted  and 
vaunted  institutions  are  mere  shadows,  and  we  should  es¬ 
cape  from  them  as  speedily  as  possible.  There  must  be 
some  way  in  which  a  democracy  can  administer  justice  to 
all  its  citizens,  which  will  render  them  so  far  content  that 
they  will  be  willing  to  carry  on  their  vocations  with  reason¬ 
able  regularity  and  continuity. 

Mr.  President,  I  was  the  author  of  a  somewhat  famous 
statement  or  declaration  in  what  is  known  as  the  Clayton 
anti-trust  law  that  the  labor  of  a  human  being  is  neither 
a  commodity  nor  an  article  of  commerce.  I  believed  in  the 
truth  of  that  statement  profoundly  then,  and  I  believe  in  it 
now  with  even  deeper  conviction.  The  labor  of  a  human 
being  is  not  a  commodity;  it  ought  not  to  be  dealt  with  as 
a  commodity;  it  ought  not  to  be  judged  as  a  commodity; 
for  it  is  a  part  of  human  energy  that  may  solicit  and  ought 
to  recive  the  same  high  consideration  from  the  world,  from 
ever}'  legislative  body,  as  all  other  energies  of  the  mind  or 
the  body.  But  I  am  just  as  much  opposed  to  Mr.  Foster 
dealing  with  human  labor  as  a  commodity  as  I  am  opposed 
to  Mr.  Gary  dealing  with  it  as  a  commodity. 

It  is  just  as  fatal  to  the  welfare  of  the  United  States  to 
allow  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to  deal  with  labor 
as  a  commodity  or  as  an  article  of  commerce  as  it  is  to 
allow  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  to  deal  with 
it  as  an  article  of  commerce  or  as  a  commodity.  This  dec¬ 
laration,  for  which  I  make  no  apology  and  of  which  I  am 
as  proud  as  I  am  of  any  other  act  of  my  life,  means  that 
labor  is  to  be  lifted  above  the  rules  which  apply  to  mere  in¬ 
animate  things;  it  means  that  the  laborer  is  a  man  and  en¬ 
titled  to  the  rights  of  a  man,  and  that  he  should  no  more 


io8 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


sell  himself  to  a  labor  union  than  he  should  sell  himself  to  a 
manufacturer.  It  applies  to  both  and  all  with  equal  force 
and  strength. 

I  do  not  want  to  be  understood  that  I  am  opposed  to 
labor  unions.  On  the  contrary,  I  think  they  are  an  essential 
part  of  our  industrial  organization.  I  do  not  believe  that 
we  could  long  survive  in  peace  and  in  order  without  labor 
unions.  I  think  the  gathering  together  of  men  in  every  oc¬ 
cupation  is  not  only  defensible  but  I  think  it  is  highly  bene¬ 
ficial  and  helpful  in  the  maintenance  of  law  and  order.  The 
laboring  men  in  any  particular  enterprise  or  in  any  particu¬ 
lar  calling  have  just  as  much  right  to  come  together  and 
work  to  promote  their  own  interests  and  lift  themselves  up, 
if  they  can,  in  the  great  scale  of  human  society  as  have  the 
men  of  capital  or  the  men  of  the  professions,  the  men  who 
labor,  as  it  is  said,  with  their  minds  instead  of  with  their 
hands.  I  do  not  want  it  to  be  understood  that  there  is  in 
this  bill  or  that  there  is  in  my  mind  any  antipathy,  any  hos¬ 
tility,  anything  but  admiration  for  labor  unions. 

I  believe  also  in  collective  bargaining.  There  is  no  es¬ 
cape  from  collective  bargaining.  It  is  the  decree  of  this  age 
from  which  we  ought  not  to  attempt  to  escape.  This  bill  is 
founded  upon  the  necessity  for  labor  unions,  so  far  as  the 
provisions  to  which  I  now  have  reference  are  concerned. 
It  could  not  operate  without  the  presence  of  labor  unions. 
This  bill  recognizes  collective  bargaining;  it  can  not  be  ad¬ 
ministered  efficiently  without  collective  bargaining. 

I  have  said  so  much  because  there  has  been  an  indus¬ 
trious  effort  to  misrepresent  the  bill.  I  have  been  amazed 
when  I  have  read  some  of  the  lying  reports  which  have 
been  circulated  throughout  the  country  with  respect  to  the 
objects  which  this  bill  seeks  to  attain,  and  I  am  saying  what 
I  have  said  to  do  what  little  I  can  do  to  overtake  these 
gross  and  malicious  misrepresentations. 

It  is  said — it  has  been  said  to  our  committee — that  this 
provision  of  the  bill  contravenes  the  natural  rights  of  man, 
and  is  therefore  unconstitutional.  It  is  a  very  common  thing 
to  hear  it  said  that  this  manacles  the  workingman,  puts 
shackles  upon  his  limbs,  and  reduces  him  to  Involuntary 
servitude.  Nothing  could  be  more  wicked  than  an  assertion 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


109 


of  that  character.  This  bill  does  not  interfere  with  the  right 
of  any  employee  of  a  railroad  company  or  any  official  of 
any  railroad  company,  because  this  bill  applies  equally  to 
every  person  who  serves  a  common  carrier,  if  the  common 
carrier  is  subject  to  the  act  to  regulate  commerce.  The  bill 
does  not  prevent,  interfere  with,  or  embarrass  any  man  who 
desires  to  leave  his  employment.  He  can  quit,  or  a  hundred 
of  them  or  a  thousand  of  them  can  quit  whenever  they  de¬ 
sire  so  to  do.  But  I  am  not  willing  to  allow  the  statement 
to  go  unchallenged  that  it  is  a  fundamental  and  a  constitu¬ 
tional  right  that  every  man  can  enjoy  to  quit  his  employ¬ 
ment  whenever  he  pleases..  That  is  not  true. 

This  bill  does  not  interfere  with  his  right  at  all;  but  a 
soldier  can  not  quit  whenever  he  desires.  He  can  not  cease 
his  employment.  An  engineer  upon  a  railway  train  can  not 
quit  whenever  he  may  desire  to  quit.  He  can  not  leave  his 
engine  and  his  train  so  that  human  life  would  be  imperiled, 
or  so  that  property,  even,  might  be  injured.  A  physician  or 
surgeon  can  not  quit  his  employment  whenever  he  may  de¬ 
sire  to  quit,  either  morally  or  legally.  He  can  not  leave  a 
dangerous  operation  half  performed  because  it  is  his  plea¬ 
sure  no  longer  to  continue  the  work  of  his  profession.  I  am 
mentioning  these  things  simply  to  show  that  it  is  not  true, 
broadly  and  fundamentally,  that  every  man  in  the  world  can 
quit  what  he  is  doing  at  any  moment  he  chooses  to  quit. 
The  human  right — and  I  am  now  speaking  of  the  individual 
right  rather  than  the  group  right — is  subject  to  higher  con¬ 
siderations  than  his  pleasure. 

Air.  THOAIAS.  I  hope  the  Senator  will  not  omit,  in  the 
category  of  obligations  that  he  is  now  giving,  to  include  men 
who  are  working  under  time  contracts,  whether  collectively 
or  individually. 

Air.  CUAIAIINS.  Quite  true.  That  would  not  have  oc¬ 
curred  to  me,  but  the  observation  is  a  very  just  one.  I  am 
mentioning  these  things  not  because  they  are  material  to  the 
bill,  for  we  do  not  attempt  in  the  bill  to  interfere  with  the 
right  of  any  employee  of  any  railway  company  or  any  man¬ 
ager  of  any  railway  company  to  cease  his  employment  when¬ 
ever  he  individually  may  desire  to  do  it,  but  I  grow  tired 
sometimes  of  hearing  these  broad  generalizations  which  are 


no 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


so  cheerfully  made  by  those  who  want  to  relieve  the  human 
being  of  all  responsibility  to  society.  We  owe  something  to 
our  fellow  men,  and,  as  the  President  of  the  United  States 
has  just  said,  that  is  the  dominant  duty  that  falls  upon  every 
conscious,  responsible  human  being. 

It  is  well  worth  while  to  read  what  the  President  has  just 
said  upon  this  subject.  I  am  not  altogether  sure  that  I  un¬ 
derstand  his  reference,  but  I  think  I  do,  and  if  anybody 
here  differs  from  me  in  that  respect  I  hope  he  will  make  it 
known  at  this  time. 

The  President,  in  the  message  which  was  delivered  day 
before  yesterday  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  said, 
among  other  things: 

Labor  not  only  is  entitled  to  an  adequate  wage,  but  capital  should 
receive  a  reasonable  return  upon  its  investment  and  is  entitled  to  pro¬ 
tection  at  the  hands  of  the  Government  in  every  emergency.  No  govern¬ 
ment  worthy  of  the  name  can  “play”  these  elements  against  each  other, 
for  there  is  a  mutuality  of  interest  between  them  which  the  Govern¬ 
ment  must  seek  to  express  and  to  safeguard  at  all  cost. 

Truer  words  were  never  penned,  a  more  timely  warning 
to  our  industrial  society  was  never  given  than  in  the  lan¬ 
guage  I  have  just  read. 

But  I  proceed: 

The  right  of  individuals  to  strike  to  inviolate  and  ought  not  to  be 
interfered  with  by  any  process  of  government;  but  there  is  a  predomi¬ 
nant  right,  and  that  is  the  right  of  the  Government  to  protect  all  of  its 
people  and  to  assert  its  power  and  majesty  against  the  challenge  of 
any  class.  The  Government,  when  it  asserts  that  right,  seeks  not  to 
antagonize  a  class  but  simply  to  defend  the  right  of  the  whole  people  as 
against  the  irreparable  harm  and  injury  that  might  be  done  by  the  at¬ 
tempt  of  any  class  to  usurp  a  power  that  only  Government  itself  has 
a  right  to  exercise  as  a  protection  to  all. 

If  I  understand  correctly  the  passage  I  have  just  read, 
it  states  views  which  every  good  citizen  of  the  United  States 
ought  to  entertain,  and  it  expresses  my  own  convictions  with 
absolute  accuracy.  *  *  * 

*  *  * 

I  think,  though,  that  the  program  suggested  two  or  three 
years  ago  was  not  complete.  I  may  not  remember  it  accu¬ 
rately,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  proposition  then  was  that 
the  strike  should  be  prohibited  for  a  time,  pending  an  in¬ 
vestigation  with  regard  to  the  merits  of  the  dispute,  and  that 
after  the  investigation  was  had,  no  matter  what  the  outcome 
of  the  investigation  might  be,  then  the  right  to  strike  was 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


in 


resumed  and  might  be  exercised  at  any  time.  That  has  been 
tried  in  our  sister  republic  at  the  north.  Canada  has  tried 
that  plan,  and  I  am  bound  to  say  that  my  examination  of 
the  history  of  the  legislation  and  of  its  administration  has 
not  been  reassuring. 

This  bill  proposes  to  take  away  the  right  to  strike  at  any 
time. 

Mr.  MYERS.  Mr.  President,  if  a  right  is  inviolate,  how 
can  there  be  any  predominant  right? 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  Mr.  President,  I  am  not  going  to  an¬ 
alyze  the  exact  phraseology  of  the  message  from  which  I 
have  read  and  subject  it  1o  any  such  critical  analysis.  I  be¬ 
lieve  that  the  President  meant,  when  he  penned  those  words 
and  sent  the  message  to  us,  that  the  right  to  strike  must  be 
subordinate  to  the  welfare  of  the  great  body  of  the  people, 
and  that  when  the  strike  involved  the  interests  of  all  the 
people,  it  must  give  way  to  some  other  plan  for  the  adjust¬ 
ment  of  a  dispute. 

*  *  * 

This  bill  punishes  only  a  combination  or  agreement  be¬ 
tween  railway  employees,  and  when  I  use  the  word  "em¬ 
ployees”  I  mean  all  the  employees  of  the  corporation,  what¬ 
ever  their  rank  may  be.  Even  if  I  were  to  grant  that  the 
individual  right  to  cease  employment  or  quit  is  perfect  and 
complete,  I  could  not  grant  that  the  right  to  enter  into  a 
combination  or  conspiracy  to  accomplish  a  purpose  inimical 
to  the  welfare  of  society  is  a  natural  or  constitutional  right. 
This  bill  does  not  control  the  individual,  but  it  controls  the 
combination,  the  agreement,  and  it  declares  that  if  two  or 
more  persons,  being  employees  of  a  carrier  subject  to  the 
act  to  regulate  commerce,  shall  enter  into  an  agreement  or 
a  combination  to  suspend  or  prevent  the  movement  in  inter¬ 
state  commerce  of  commodities  on  which  we  are  all  depend¬ 
ent  for  life  and  for  health  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  some 
demand  or  claim  against  their  employer,  that  such  persons 
shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  shall  be  punished  ac¬ 
cordingly. 

What  right  have  I,  who  may  believe  I  have  a  just  claim 
against  you,  to  enter  into  a  conspiracy  or  combination  or 
agreement  with  some  other  man  or  with  some  other  men  to 


1 12 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


deprive  you  of  the  necessaries  of  life  until  you  yield  to  the 
demand  which  I  have  made  upon  you?  It  is  monstrous.  It 
can  not  be  defended  in  any  court  of  morals.  A  course  of 
that  kind  can  not  be  defended  in  any  court  of  civilization 
and  progress. 

Mark  you,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  right  of  strike  should 
be  taken  away  from  the  employees  without  substituting  some¬ 
thing  better  in  its  stead.  So  long  as  it  is  a  mere  conflict 
between  the  employees  and  the  employer,  I  would  permit, 
of  course,  as  this  bill  permits,  a  strike.  The  loss  that  might 
be  imposed  upon  the  emplo3^er  does  not  greatly  concern  so¬ 
ciety,  and  there  is  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  com¬ 
mittee,  I  am  sure,  to  interfere  with  a  conflict  of  that  char¬ 
acter.  It  is  only  when  the  conflict,  this  endeavor  to  impose 
loss  upon  the  employer,  becomes  destructive  of  society,  of 
the  welfare  of  the  great  body  of  the  people,  that  this  bill 
proposes  to  intervene  and  make  it  impossible. 

I  do  not  intend,  Mr.  President,  to  read  the  provisions,  but 
I  want  to  emphasize  two  things:  First,  the  bill  provides  what 
it  believes  to  be  impartial  tribunals  for  the  adjudication  of 
all  disputes  between  the  carriers  and  their  employees.  These 
tribunals,  the  details  of  which  I  shall  not  discuss  at  this 
moment,  have  jurisdiction  of  all  the  disputes  which  may 
come  up  from  time  to  time  between  the  railway  corpora¬ 
tions  and  their  employees.  Bear  in  mind  that  we  have  at¬ 
tempted  to  establish  a  tribunal  with  jurisdiction  and  with 
capacity  to  determine  all  the  disputes  which  ever  gave  rise 
to  a  strike.  In  the  second  place,  I  hope  you  will  bear  in 
mind  the  character  of  the  penal  provision,  which  is  that — 

It  shall  be  unlawful  for  two  or  more  persons,  being  officers,  directors, 
managers,  agents,  attorneys,  or  employees  of  any  carrier  or  carriers 
subject  to  the  act_to  regulate  commerce,  as  amended  for  the  purpose  of 
maintaining,  adjusting  or  settling  any  dispute,  demand,  or  controversy 
which,  under  the  provisions  of  this_  act,  can  be  submitted  for  decision 
to  the  committee  of  wages  and  working  conditions  or  to  a  regional  board 
of  adjustment,  to  enter  into  any  combination  or  agreement  with  the 
intent  substantially  _  to  hinder,  restrain,  or  prevent  the  operation  of 
trains  or  other  facilities  of  transportation  for  the  movement  of  com¬ 
modities  or  persons  in  interstate  commerce,  or  in  pursuance  of  any  such 
combination  or  agreement  and  with  like  purpose  substantially  to  hinder, 
restrain,  or  prevent  the  operation  of  trains  or  other  facilities  of  trans¬ 
portation  for  the  movement  of  commodities  or  persons  in  interstate 
commerce. 

This  is  the  description  of  the  offense;  and  remember  that 
the  offense  can  only  be  committed  when  the  dispute  is  one 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


ii  3 

of  which  the  government  has  taken  jurisdiction,  and  which 
it  has  assumed  the  duty  of  adjudicating  according  to  its  very 
merits. 

There  is  another  provision  which  is  necessary  as  a  sup¬ 
plement  to  the  one  I  have  just  read,  as  follows: 

Whoever  knowingly  and  with  like  intent  shall  aid,  abet,  counsel, 
command,  induce,  or  procure  the  commission  or  performance  of  any  act 
made  unlawful  in  the  last  preceding  section  hereof  shall  be  held  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor — 

And  so  forth. 

You  will  all  recognize  that  this  is  simply  a  reproduction 
of  our  present  statute  with  regard  to  accessories  and  those 
who  aid  and  abet  in  the  commission  of  a  crime. 

Mr.  President,  remembering  that  we  have  provided  a 
tribunal  which  we  believe  to  be  a  just,  fair,  and  impartial  tri¬ 
bunal  for  the  adjudication  of  all  controversies  of  the  char¬ 
acter  I  have  described,  I  hope  that  this  thought  will  be  in 
every  mind,  that  we  are  substituting  the  justice  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  for  the  justice  which  wage 
workers  have  hoped  to  secure  through  the  strike.  We  are 
simply  exchanging  one  instrumentality  for  another.  We  are 
offering  an  opportunity  to  secure  justice  which  does  not  in¬ 
volve  this  awful  sacrifice,  which  does  not  involve  the  wreck 
and  ruin  of  industry,  of  homes,  and  of  character.  We  are 
offering  to  do  in  controversies  out  of  which  railway  strikes 
may  arise  just  what  our  courts  of  justice  have  done  for  cen¬ 
turies  with  respect  to  controversies  between  man  and  man. 
Hitherto  we  have  not  regarded  it  as  necessary  that  our  gov¬ 
ernment  should  undertake  the  adjudication  which  is  here 
provided  for,  and  I,  Mr.  President,  have  been  very  slow  and 
very  reluctant  to  go  forward  to  that  duty.  But  I  perceive, 
and  I  have  long  perceived,  that  it  is  necessary,  if  we  are  to 
have  regularity  and  continuity  of  employment.  Therefore 
I  am  willing,  on  the  part  of  my  government,  to  undertake 
to  do  full  and  complete  justice,  so  far  as  wages  and  working 
conditions  are  concerned,  to  those  who  enter  into  employ¬ 
ment  of  this  character.  I  believe,  and  believe  from  the  bot¬ 
tom  of  my  heart,  that  the  laboring  men  of  America  will  be 
more  apt  to  secure  justice  or  approach  perfect  justice  through 
the  intervention  of  these  tribunals  for  the  settlement  of 
their  disputes  than  they  have  ever  been  able  to  secure 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


1 14 

through  the  medium  of  the  strike,  when  you  remember  the 
losses  that  are  entailed  not  only  upon  the  general  public, 
not  only  upon  their  immediate  employer,  but  upon  them¬ 
selves.  When  will  the  striking  miners  be  able  to  recoup  the 
enormous  losses  which  they  have  suffered  during  the  last 
month? 

It  is  said  they  would,  if  necessary,  imperil  lives  of  their 
fellow  men  in  order  to  accomplish  their  purposes;  but  if  we 
provide  for  them  a  tribunal  in  which  they  have  confidence 
and  for  which  they  have  respect  and  to  which  they  can  ap¬ 
peal,  there  could  be  no  justification,  no  defense  whatever,  for 
the  danger  through  which  they  are  now  leading  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  Think  of  this  provision  merely  as  a 
substitution  of  justice,  so  far  as  human  government  can  ad¬ 
minister  justice,  for  the  ends  sought  to  be  obtained  by  the 
strike. 

I  am  not  conscious  of  any  change  in  my  heart  toward 
those  who  labor  with  their  hands.  I  know  through  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  earlier  years  some  of  the  hardships,  some  of  the 
privations,  some  of  the  sufferings  which  attend  the  lives  of 
men  of  meager  compensation,  but  I  can  have  no  sympathy 
whatever  with  an  effort  to  overturn  the  institutions  of  Amer¬ 
ica  through  the  disorders  which  must  inevitably  accompany 
these  constantly  repeated  efforts  to  determine  what  is  right 
and  what  is  just  by  mere  conflict  and  through  the  powers 
of  endurance. 

Possibly  some  Senator  can  suggest  a  better  plan  through 
which  we  may  rise  to  a  higher  ground  for  the  adjustment 
of  these  great  disputes  and  for  the  calming  of  these  intense 
passions.  If  any  Senator  can  do  so,  I  am  sure  the  com¬ 
mittee  will  be  glad  to  accept  any  suggestion  which  may  be 
made.  We  only  know — and  upon  this  I  speak,  I  am  sure, 
with  absolute  certainty — that  in  some  way  there  must  be 
found,  in  some  way  we  must  discover,  the  path  from  the 
tangle  of. conflict  and  of  passion  into  which  we  are  constant¬ 
ly  led.  I  would  have  no  faith  in  the  intelligence  of  my  fel¬ 
low  men,  I  would  have  no  confidence  in  the  patriotism  of 
the  people,  if  I  did  not  believe  that  there  is  a  solution  for 
this  mighty  problem  that  will  bring  peace,  order,' prosperity, 
happiness,  and  content  to  all  the  people  of  the  country. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


ii5 

COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  IN  RAILROAD 

LABOR  DISPUTES1 

Since  the  dawn  of  civilization,  no  more  difficult  problem 
has  faced  humanity  than  the  problems  involved  in  labor  and 
its  employers.  Naturally,  there  always  has  been  a  conten¬ 
tion  between  the  employer  of  labor  and  the  employee.  Up 
to  the  present  time,  at  least  in  modern  times,  the  contest 
between  labor  and  capital,  so  called,  has  been  settled  by 
force.  For  many  years,  in  the  ages  that  have  passed,  labor 
was  not  strong  enough  to  exercise  its  power  effectively,  and 
the  force  of  capital  dominated  it,  forced  unreasonable  and 
unjust  terms  on  it,  and  it  has  only  been  through  the  gradual 
evolution  of  the  rights  of  labor  that  it  has  come  to  a  point 
where  it  can  fight  for  itself. 

Through  the  last  half  century  labor  has  been  fighting  for 
itself,  until  to-day  organized  labor  constitutes  the  effective 
force  in  human  endeavor,  the  dominant  force  between  labor 
and  capital.  It  may  be  said  that  that  is  not  an  unjust  posi¬ 
tion  for  it  to  occupy,  because  it  has  fought  its  way  to  that 
position.  It  would  not  be  if  the  only  matter  in  dispute  were 
a  fight  between  labor  and  capital.  If  that  were  all  that 
were  involved  in  the  issue,  I  would  not  be  in  favor  of  the 
provisions  of  this  part  of  the  bill. 

But  the  issue  here  goes  far  beyond  the  question  of  labor 
and  capital.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  so  tar  as  railroad  labor  is 
concerned,  it  has  no  issue  with  invested  capital.  Theoret¬ 
ically  it  may  have,  but  as  a  practical  proposition  the.  wages 
of  labor  engaged  in  railroad  industry  have  long  ceased  to 
come  out  of  invested  capital.  They  come  out  of  freight 
rates  and  passenger  rates  as  prescribed  by  the  government, 
either  through  a  director  general  or  through  the  supervision 
of  an  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  The  amount  of  la¬ 
bor  involved  and  the  value  of  labor’s  wage  in  this  industry 
is  so  great  that  if  it  rested  for  one  year  upon  invested  capital 
it  would  destroy  invested  capital.  Of  necessity  it  must  come 
out  of  the  earnings  of  these  roads,  and  the  earnings  of  the 
roads  must  come  out  of  the  public. 

1  Speech  of  Hon.  Oscar  W.  Underwood  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
December  18,  1919. 


n6 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


If  that  is  the  case,  is  it  fairly  stating  the  proposition  to 
say  that  labor  must  still  carry  its  weapon  of  offense  against 
capital,  that  the  value  of  its  wage  must  be  determined  on  the 
battle  ground  between  labor  and  capital,  and  then,  after  the 
battle  is  fought  and  won,  the  result  of  the  victory  must  be 
assessed  against  the  public,  which  has  had  no  interest  or  no 
hand  in  the  dispute? 

But  it  does  not  even  stop  there.  The  public  are  not  only 
required  to  pay  the  bill,  but  they  must  bear  the  burden  of 
the  fight.  The  reservation  to  labor  of  the  right  to  strike 
is  either  an  actual  fact,  a  weapon  that  is  poised  on  its  way 
to  the  blow,  or  it  is  a  mere  theory  and  is  of  no  value.  If 
it  is  of  no  value,  if  it  is  not  going  to  be  used,  if  there  is  no 
danger  of  a  strike,  if  it  is  not  an  effective  weapon  for  labor, 
why  should  we  hesitate  to  adopt  clauses  in  this  bill  that  pro¬ 
vide  that  two  or  more  men  shall  not  conspire  to  interfere 
with  interstate  commerce?  There  is  nothing  to  be  obtained 
for  labor,  if  this  is  a  mere  theory,  a  weapon  that  will  never 
be  put  into  force. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  it  is  an  actual  weapon  that  some 
dav  may  be  used,  who  will  pay  the  penalty?  Of  course 
there  can  be  nothing  else  now  but  a  universal  railroad  strike 
in  this  country.  The  day  of  a  local  strike  is  past.  There 
may  be  a  bubbling  over  here  or  there  on  the  map.  Labor 
leaders  do  not  want  local  strikes.  Railroad  companies  do 
not  want  them.  It  is  only  when  the  organization  loses  its 
control  that  a  local  strike  takes  place.  The  real  effort  is 
the  effort  to  bring  about  a  universal  railroad  strike  in  Amer¬ 
ica. 

That  was  threatened  in  1916.  We  were  told  that  it  was 
imminent  at  that  time  unless  remedial  legislation  was  passed 
to  avert  it.  Legislation  was  passed,  and  the  strike  was  avert¬ 
ed;  and  now  we  are  told  by  some  that  there  was  no  danger 
of  that  strike,  that  the  men  did  not  intend  to  strike,  or  that 
the  representatives  of  the  railroad  companies  would  have 
surrendered.  We  are  told  by  some  that  when  labor  came 
to  Congress  and  asked  that  the  Adamson  bill  be  passed  in 
order  to  avoid  strike  conditions  the  men  who  came  here  did 
not  represent  their  organizations,  and  that  they  are  in  no 
way  committed  to  the  precedent  set  in  that  case.  Neverthe¬ 
less,  a  great  strike  was  imminent,  it  was  threatening  the  com- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


n  7 


mercial  life  of  the  nation,  and  was  only  avoided  by  legis¬ 
lative  enactment. 

Who  would  have  paid  the  price  if  the  railroads  had 
stopped  operating  for  30  days  by  reason  of  a  great  strike? 
Capital  would  have  been  affected  to  some  extent,  because 
the  earnings  on  capital  might  have  been  affected. 

Labor  would  have  suffered  to  a  great  extent,  because 
labor’s  wages  would  have  been  wiped  out  for  the  period  of 
the  strike.  But  the  sufferings  neither  of  vested  capital  nor 
of  labor  would  have  been  commensurate  with  the  distress 
that  would  have  come  to  every  home  of  this  land. 

Stop  the  railroads  from  ^operating  into  the  great  cities  for 
30  days,  and  the  population  is  starving.  Stop  the  railroads 
from  operating  into  an  industrial  center  for  30  days,  and 
commerce  has  ceased,  and  labor  involved  in  commerce  is 
out  of  employment.  Stop  the  railroads  from  operating  for 
30  days,  and  the  whole  business  life  of  the  nation  has  ceased 
to  function.  That  is  the  price  that  the  people  of  the  United 
States  must  pay  for  the  privilege  given  to  organized  labor 
to  declare  a  universal  strike  for  any  cause  and  to  make  it 
effective. 

I  am  not  going  to  contend  as  to  whether  the  cause  of 
labor  is  just  or  not.  Men  are  human,  whether  we  class  them 
in  the  aggregate  or  as  individuals,  and  human  nature  is  prone 
to  err  on  either  side  of  the  equation.  I  think  it  is  safe  to 
say  that  sometimes  a  strike  is  most  just,  for  a  most  just 
cause,  and  at  other  times  a  strike  is  without  reason  or  jus¬ 
tice  behind  it. 

But  that  is  not  the  question  involved  here.  The  public, 
the  hundred  millions  of  people  in  the  United  States,  are  not 
those  who  determine  whether  the  strike  is  just  or  unjust. 
They  merely  stand  by  to  pay  the  penalty,  and  they  will  have 
to  pay  it  some  day,  beyond  peradventure  of  a  doubt,  if  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  is  unwilling  to  meet  the  sit¬ 
uation  and  put  remedial  legislation  on  the  statute  books 
that  will  work  justly  to  all  men  and  avoid  the  dangers  to 
the  American  public. 

Some  men  speak  of  the  so-called  right  to  strike  as  if  it 
were  a  human  right,  a  right  that  belonged  to  men,  like  the 
right  to  live,  the  right  to  breathe,  the  right  to  work  in  an 
individual  capacity.  Organized  labor  itself  repudiates  the 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


118 

foremost  right  of  man,  the  right  to  work,  when  it  stands  for 
a  closed  shop. 

The  by-laws  of  many  of  these  organizations  proclaim 
that  no  man  can  work  in  certain  shops  or  at  certain  em¬ 
ployment  unless  he  belongs  to  a  particular  organization,  and 
works  within  the  rules  and  according  to  the  dictates  of  that 
organization. 

If  labor  has  the  privilege  and  the  right  to  deny  to  other 
labor  the  unrestricted  right  to  toil  and  earn  its  daily  wage, 
does  it  lie  in  their  mouths  to  say  that  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  is  taking  away  from  them  an  inherent  right 
that  belongs  to  them  when  the  Congress  says,  “You  can 
work  only  under  certain  limitations,”  the  Congress  speaking 
for  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States? 

To  strike!  What  does  it  mean?  Men  now  talk  of  the 
right  to  strike  as  if  it  were  the  right  to  quit  work.  The 
right  to  strike  and  the  right  of  the  individual  to  quit  his  em¬ 
ployment  are  two  very  different  things. 

One  is  the  exercise  of  individual  liberty,  the  other  is  the 
exercise  of  aggregate  force  to  accomplish  a  purpose,  to  carry 
out  the  desire  of  the  men  engaged  in  the  strike,  or  of  the 
organization  that  has  ordered  the  strike.  One  is  a  negative 
force,  that  hurts  no  man;  the  other  is  an  active  force,  that 
injures  many.  This  bill  in  its  terms  provides  that  nothing 
written  in  these  pages  shall  be  construed  as  preventing  any 
man  engaged  in  the  railroad  business  from  quitting  his  em¬ 
ployment.  and  yet  they  speak  of  it  as  if  this  bill  intended  to 
coerce  men  to  work  when  they  did  not  desire  to  do  so. 

A  strike  is  what  it  implies  in  its  own  terms.  It  is  a  blow, 
a  blowr  directed  with  an  object  behind  it,  and  it  is  the  only 
way  that  it  makes  it  effective.  Is  the  Congress  to  stand 
here  and  allow  any  organization  whatever  to  deliver  a  blowT 
against  the  American  public  that  may  endanger  the  very  life 
of  the  nation,  or  is  it  our  duty  to  see  that  substantial  justice 
is  done  to  all  concerned  without  the  delivery  of  the  destruc¬ 
tive  blow? 

When  the  bill  and  these  provisions  were  before  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Interstate  Commerce,  Mr.  Gompers  appeared  as 
a  witness  in  opposition  to  the  bill.  I  asked  him  some  ques¬ 
tions  regarding  the  matter.  I  think  his  answers  to  the  ques¬ 
tions  I  asked  thoroughly  defined  the  position  of  labor  in 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


119 


regard  to  the  bill  and  where  their  position  leads  to.  I  am 
therefore  going  to  take  the  time  of  the  Senate  to  read  three 
or  four  pages  from  the  hearings,  so  that  that  position  may 
be  made  clear  in  the  record. 

I  said  this  to  Mr.  Gompers: 

I  think  some  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  come  before  us  have  mis¬ 
understood  the  purpose  or  the  reason  for  the  initiation  of  this  legisla¬ 
tion;  but  I  am  sure  you  have  not  because  I  think  you  recognize  the  fact 
that  in  recent  years  you  and  those  you  represent  have  been  reasonably 
and  fairly  treated  by  Congress.  Of  course,  this  legislation  comes  with 
a  sentiment  behind  it  or  it  would  not  be  here;  but  there  is  a  sentiment 
among  the  people  that  is  responsive  to  it,  because  Congress  seldom  acts 
without  the  sentiment  of  the  people  in  framing  legislation.  Of  course, 
you  recognize  that  that  sentiment  comes  from  a  fear  that  a  general 
universal  strike  throughout  this^country  would  bring  a  debacle  that  would 

make  the  mass  of  the  people  who  are  not  engaged  in  the  strike  suffer 

more  than  even  the  horrors  of  war.  Now,  that  is  the  real  thing  that 
brings  this  legislation  to  the  table.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  if  you  op¬ 
pose  it  or  if  you  think  it  is  ill  advised  to  meet  this  situation  by  profit 
sharing  or  any  other  reward  to  labor  except  the  just  wrage  that  is  due 
it;  how  are  we  to  avoid  the  danger  to  the  public  of  an  issue  that  comes, 
that  may  come  at  some  time?  Fortunately  it  has  never  come  yet  in  that 
stressed  form,  the  danger  that  may  come  to  the  public  of  a  universal 
strike  in  this  country  that  might  last  for  months.  Is  there  any  other  way 
to  avoid  it  except  by  law? 

Mr.  Gompers  answered  the  question  as  follows: 

You  can  not  avoid  it  by  law.  That  is  not  the  way  to  avoid  it. 

Then  I  asked: 

What  other  way  is  there  to  avoid  it?  Of  course,  I  do  not  so  agree 

that  it  can  not  be  avoided  by  law.  You  may  be  right;  I  may  be  wrong. 

I  think  th  law  goes  a  long  ways  sometimes - 

Mr.  Gompers.  Sometimes. 

Then  I  asked  the  question. 

But  I  would  like  to  have  your  view.  I  think  it  as  a  serious  problem 
that  confronts  the  country.  I  am  sure  that  you  realize  the  seriousness 
of  the  problem,  and  I  would  like  to  have  your  view  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Gompers.  No  one  views  that  thought,  much  less  than  act,  more 
seriously  than  I  do;  but  I  do  know  this:  There  has  been  no  general 
strike  of  railroad  men  in  the  United  States,  and  the  attempt  that  was 
made  in  1894  with  the  A.  R.  U.  strike  was,  after  a  few  days,  practically 
abortive.  The  railroad  brotherhoods  stood  as  strongly  against  that  gen¬ 
eral  strike  as  any  body  of  men  could.  They  had  more  influence  in  de¬ 
termining  that  it  should  not  pass  those  limits  or  reach  those  limits  than 
anybody  could  have,  the  Congress  included.  The  American  Federation 
of  Labor  was  a  party  to  a  conference  in  1894  at  Chicago  where  an  urgent 
appeal  wa9  made  to  us  to  order  or  to  declare  for  a  general  strike  of  all 
the  workers  of  the  country.  The  men  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  were  in  conference  with  the  chiefs  of  the  railroad  brotherhoods, 
and  that  was  negatived.  We  were  willing  to  do  anything  we  could  to 
bring  about  better  conditions  for  the  workers  at  Pullman,  Ill.,  but  we 
would  not  sanction,  but  gave  our  disapproval  of,  anything  like  a  general 
railroad  strike  or  a  general  strike  among  the  workers. 

Then  I  said: 

|  ~  ; 

Well,  1  am  not  talking  about  the  past.  I  suppose  the  nearest  we 
came  to  it  was  in  1916.  But  it  does  mean  that  that  is  what  the  public 
visualizes,  and  that  is  the  sentiment  that  stands  behind  this  bill. 


120 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Mb.  Gompers.  The  question  is  whether  such  a  strike  could  be  pre¬ 
vented  if  this  measure  were  enacted  into  the  law.  That  is  the  question. 

Then  I  asked  the  question: 

Well,  that  question,  of  course,  I  recognize.  I  recognize,  as  a  rule,  if 
this  became  a  law  that  it  would  prevent  a  universal  strike;  but  I  may 
be  in  error.  You  may  be  right;  but  the  question  I  would  be  glad  to 
have  you  answer  to  go  into  the  record,  not  only  for  you  and  me  but 
for  the  country  to  understand  is:  Is  there  any  other  way  that  a  uni¬ 
versal  railroad  strike  or  the  danger  of  it  can  be  avoided  if  the  Govern¬ 
ment  itself  does  not  act? 

May  I  read  that  question  again,  because  I  want  to  im¬ 
press  it  upon  the  record? 

Is  there  any  other  way  that  a  universal  railroad  strike  or  the  danger 
of  it  can  be  avoided  if  the  Government  itself  does  not  act? 

Mr.  Gompers  answered: 

I  can  not  underwrite  any  measure  or  proposition  that  will  absolutely 
prevent  a  general  railroad  strike.  No  one  can.  But  this  I  do  know: 
That  fair  treatment  of  the  workers  and  with  the  workers’  organizations 
is  the  best  insurance  against  such  a  movement,  such  a  strike.  You  will 
find  the  four  railroad  brotherhoods,  with  their  executive  officers,  are  men 
of  experience,  men  of  intelligence,  and  men  with  a  fair  sense  of  the 
responsibility  that  rests  upon  them.  I  do  not  mean  only  the  chiefs  of 
these  brotherhoods;  I  have  also  in  mind  their  associates  on  the  executive 
boards  and  in  the  various  divisions  throughout  the  country. 

There  is  no  greater  safeguard  against  such  strikes  than  a  reasonable 
course  pursued  by  the  companies  and  by  the  employers  to  treat  with  the 
workers  and  give  these  men  a  fair  chance  that  they  may  have  the  op 
portunity  of  educating  their  fellows.  If  that  chance  is  denied  them,  it 
every  move  they  make  is  antagonized,  their  influence  will  be  destroyed 
and  the  element  that  now  would  turn  this  country  topsy-turvy  would 
have  the  ear  and  the  attention  of  the  discontented  in  the  organizations 
and  the  unorganized. 

Then  I  said: 

Well,  I  am  interested  in  what  you  say,  but  that  does  not  answer 
the  question.  I  assume  that  you  mean  by  your  answer  to  the  question 
that  you  do  not  think  it  is  possible  in  any  other  way  except  by  law,  by 
this  law,  to  eliminate  the  possibility,  the  future  possibility,  of  a  universal 
railroad  strike. 

Mr.  Gompers.  I  say  with  the  full  understanding  of  the  words  I 
employ,  that  the  surest  way  of  creating  dissension,  greater  unrest,  pos¬ 
sibly  leading  to  such  a  strike,  is  the  provision  in  that  bill.  No  other 
agency  could  provoke  it  more  than  that  bill. 

Yesterday  I  took  occasion  in  some  little  detail  to  discuss  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  the  countries  in  which  compulsory  arbitration  has  been  tried. 
Although  it  is  not  called  a  compulsory  arbitration  law,  it  still  is,  in 
other  words,  a  law  to  determine  wages,  hours,  conditions  of  employ¬ 
ment;  and  if  there  be  no  majority  of  the  two  parties  or  four,  then 
there  is  an  appeal  to  another  board  whose  findings  and  award  are  final 
in  matters  on  wages,  hours,  and  conditions  of  employment.  It  is  final. 
There  is  no  appeal  anywhere.  The  men  must  obey.  They  must  work, 
whether  they  will  it  or  not.  They  can  not  quit  work,  they  can  not 
strike,  if  you  please.  You  will  never  take  away  from  the  working 
people  by  law  or  by  any  other  process  the  right  of  the  workers  to  quit 
their  employment. 

Then  I  said: 

Well,  I  would  not  do  that  if  I  had  the  power. 

Mr.  Gompers.  That  is  done  in  that  bill. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


121 


I  said: 

I  do  not  think  it  is  in  that  bill. 

Mr.  Gompers  said: 

It  is  in  the  bill,  section  29. 

I  then  said: 

But  the  difference  is,  or  I  think  it  is,  under  the  bill,  that  there  is 
no  limitation  on  the  power  of  the  workers,  in  singles  or  in  pairs,  to 
quit  the  railroad  employment  unless  they  do  it  for  the  purpose  of  inter¬ 
fering  with  commerce,  the  movement  of  commerce.  Of  course  that  is  a 
different  question  from  the  mere  question  of  their  right  to  work.  In 
the  interest  of  the  public  we  pass  many  laws  restricting  the  rights  of  the 
individual.  Of  course,  to  keep  the  flow  of  commerce  that  keeps  the  people 
of  America  going,  I  have  no  doubt,  and  I  do  not  think  you  would 
disagree  with  me,  that  we  have  a  right  to  pass  reasonable  laws  and 
regulations  in  the  protection  of  ‘the  public.  That  is  the  way  I  view 
this  part  of  the  section.  The  real  question  involved  in  this  bill  is  the 
question  of  the  Government  fixing  the  wage  instead  of  the  corporation 
fixing  the  wage.  Although  this  is  called  arbitration,  I  think  you  will 
agree  with  me  that  this  is  not  compulsory  arbitration,  but,  in  the  last 
analysis,  it  is  the  fixing  of  the  wage  by  the  Government.  The  Govern¬ 
ment  board  has  the  last  say  and  it  fixes  the  wage. 

Mr.  Gompers.  Yes;  and  the  men  are  compelled  to  work  under  that 
governmental  award. 

Then  I  said: 

Well,  just  as  the  clerks  in  a  department  in  Washington,  with  their 
fixed  wages,  are  obliged  if  they  want  to  work  at  all. 

Mr.  Gompers.  But  they  can  not  quit.  They  must  work. 

I  said: 

I  do  not  understand  it  that  way.  I  think  you  are  wrong. 

Omitting  a  few  sentences  there  that  are  not  pertinent  to 
the  issue,  I  said: 

If  it  was  intended  to  stop  the  movement  of  trains,  yes;  but  not  be¬ 
cause  a  man  was  not  satisfied  with  his  job  and  wanted  higher  wages. 

Mr.  Gompers.  The  man  who  wants  to  quit  his  job  can  quit.  It  is  not 
a  question  of  a  man  quitting  his  job,  but  two  men  in  concert  quitting 

their  jobs  in  order  to  persaude  or  influence  the  employer  to  grant  better 

conditions;  and  the  idea  of  simply  quitting  is  not  the  only  thing.  No 
man  can  quit  his  job  without  inconveniencing  the  employer  or  others. 
The  stenographers  in  the  Senate,  if  they  informed  the  clerk,  or  the  man 
who  has  them  in  charge,  who  gives  them  employment,  that  they  are  no 
longer  willing  to  work  for  the  rate  of  compensation,  and  they  quit 
work,  it  would  inconvenience  the  Senate  very  materially;  and  that  is 
the  purpose,  to  inconvenience  the  Senate  sufficiently  that  the  Senate 
will  yield  a  fair  consideration  to  these  men. 

I  will  not  take  up  the  time  of  the  Senate  in  reading  fur¬ 
ther  from  this  statement,  but  I  have  read  from  it  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  out  two  facts:  one  is  that  Mr.  Gom¬ 
pers,  the  supreme  head  of  organized  labor  in  the  United 
States,  declares  that  there  is  no  other  way  to  avoid  a  uni¬ 
versal  strike  except  by  this  bill;  and  he  denies  that  this  bill 
will  do  it,  but  he  says  there  is  no  other  way.  Then  he  says 


122 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


that  a  strike  is  an  offensive  weapon.  In  the  last  sentence 
that  I  read  to  you  he  admits  the  bill  does  not  prevent  the 
individual  from  exercising  his  personal  liberty  and  quitting 
work  when  he  desires  to  do  so,  but  that  it  does  prevent  two 
or  more  from  exercising  the  right  to  quit  collectively  so  as 
to  inconvenience  their  employer  and  by  that  course  compel 
.  2  employer  to  agree  to  their  terms  of  employment. 

That  is  the  issue  presented  to  the  country.  It  is  not  dis¬ 
puted  by  the  supreme  head  of  organized  labor.  The  ques¬ 
tion  that  confronts  this  body  is  whether  or  not,  under  those 
circumstances,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  intends  to  sur¬ 
render  the  initiative — to  recognize  that  there  is  no  way  to 
avoid  the  calamity  of  a  universal  strike,  except  by  law,  and 
then  refuse  to  pass  the  law. 

About  the  terms  of  the  law  I  am  not  so  much  con¬ 
cerned.  Write  in  this  bill  a  provision  that  the  mass  of  the 
American  people  shall  no  longer  be  in  danger  of  a  universal 
strike  and  I  am  willing  for  you  to  write  the  terms  under 
which  labor  shall  surrender  that  so-called  right. 

I  fully  recognize  the  fact  that  the  force  of  the  blow  un¬ 
der  the  right  to  strike  is  the  weapon  by  which  labor  must 
battle  upward,  and  under  ordinary  circumstances  and  con¬ 
ditions  it  is  entitled  to  use  that  force  in  its  own  behalf,  if 
it  does  not  endanger  the  public.  I  also  recognize  the  fact 
that  if  that  right  is  taken  away  from  organized  labor  or 
unorganized  labor,  in  justice  and  right  they  must  be  given 
some  remedy  in  its  place.  Labor  should  not  be  disarmed 
and  capital  left  armed  cap-a-pie  to  ride  them  down;  there 
would  be  no  justice  in  that,  but  in  every  other  walk  of  life 
we  have  established  the  courts  of  the  land  to  avoid  the  blow. 

Back  in  the  generations  that  have  passed  man  held  his 
property  by  force  of  arms;  to-day  he  holds  his  property  by 
force  of  law.  So  long  as  the  strike  did  not  threaten  the 
body  politic,  the  government  ignored  the  power  of  the  strike, 
but  now  that  the  people,  as  a  whole,  are  endangered,  only 
the  government  can  protect  them. 

Is  it  injustice  to  any  man  to  prepare  a  fair  and  just  tribu¬ 
nal  in  which  the  great  issue  of  wages  and  working  condi¬ 
tions  may  be  worked  out  and  solved,  first,  in  the  interest 
of  labor,  and,  second,  in  the  interest  of  the  American  public? 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


123 


Mr.  Gompers,  in  his  testimony — and  I  take  his  testimony 
because  he  is  the  leader;  the  testimony  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
brotherhoods  who  appeared  before  the  committee  was  along 
similar  lines — Mr.  Gompers,  in  his  testimony,  says  that  the 
way  to  avoid  strikes  is  through  the  moderation  and  concilia¬ 
tion  of  the  railroad  chiefs  and  their  subordinates;  the  reach¬ 
ing  of  a  common  understanding  on  controverted  matters; 
working  out  abstract  justice  through  mediation.  Have  they 
any  less  opportunity  to  work  out  abstract  justice  through  the 
mediation  of  a  government  board  such  as  is  proposed  by  the 
bill  than  they  have  in  a  board  of  directors  of  a  railroad  com¬ 
pany?  I  think  not.  I  think  the  position  of  labor,  if  it  is 
only  battling  for  what  is  justly  its  rights,  is  vastly  more  im¬ 
proved  under  the  terms  and  conditions  of  this  bill  than  if 
it  were  relegated  back  to  the  present  warring  conditions  pre¬ 
vailing  between  labor  and  invested  capital. 

I  think  that  the  fundamental  provision  in  this  bill  which 
is  going  to  work  out  a  result  is  the  one  that  if  arbitration 
fails,  if  conciliation  fails,  a  board  of  men  appointed  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  representing  the  American 
people,  assumed  to  be  free  from  bias  and  prejudice  on  either 
side,  shall  sit  in  final  judgment  and  determine  what  is  a  fair 
wage,  not  between  labor  and  capital  but  a  fair  wage  between 
labor  and  the  public  that  pays  the  bill.  I  do  not  know  of 
anything  that  would  be  a  greater  backward  step  for  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  to  take  to-day  than  to  aban¬ 
don  the  efforts  made  during  the  Great  War  by  the  govern¬ 
ment  and  its  government  boards  to  see  that  labor  was  justly 
and  fairly  compensated  and  avoid  the  debacle  of  strike  con¬ 
ditions  and  strike  out  the  labor  provisions  of  this  bill.  That 
is  what  it  means. 

How  many  strikes  were  adjusted  during  the  Great  War 
because  there  were  in  existence  boards  similar  to  those  set 
up  in  this  bill?  Can  anyone  say  that  labor  was  unjustly 
treated,  that  the  government  wronged  the  labor  of  the  United 
States  in  the  trial  of  these  matters?  I  think  not.  I  say  the 
man  who  predicts  that  a  board  representing  the  government 
of  the  United  States  can  not  do  justice  to  labor  doubts  the 
very  fundamental  principle  on  which  our  government  is  es¬ 
tablished,  doubts  the  ability  of  our  government  to  do  justice 


124 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


between  man  and  man,  and  preserve  the  liberties  of  the 
American  people. 

O/  *1;  it  ^ 

/j'  T  T  'T  '1'  T  T 

If  it  is  a  good  thing  to  prevent  a  strike  temporarily — and  it 
is — why  is  it  not  a  good  thing  to  prevent  it  entirely?  If  this  can 
be  worked  out  justly  as  a  temporary  matter  by  a  government 
board  and  boards  of  arbitration,  why  can  it  not  be  worked  out 
as  the  final  conclusion?  That  is  the  question.  If  it  can,  why 
should  we  limit  the  process?  It  is  either  right  or  it  is  wrong 
in  principle.  It  is  either  right  or  it  is  wrong  in  justice  to 
the  men  who  are  earning  their  daily  wage  on  these  railroads. 
It  is  either  right  or  it  is  wrong  so  far  as  the  American  public 
is  concerned;  and  if  it  is  right  in  part  for  temporary  pur¬ 
poses,  then  it  seems  to  me  that  the  conclusion  is  irresistible 
that  it  is  right  in  whole  and  should  be  adopted  for  the  final 
conclusion. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  bill  that  prevents  any  man  from 
quitting  work  if  he  does  not  enjoy  it.  If  he  thinks  he 
can  get  a  better  wage  or  more  satisfactory  employment  some¬ 
where  else,  there  is  nothing  in  the  folds  of  this  bill  that 
stands  in  his  way.  The  only  thing  in  this  bill,  if  you  bring 
it  down  to  its  last  analysis,  and  eliminate  all  the  preliminary 
procedure  of  arbitration  and  leading  up  to  the  question  of 
final  conclusion,  is  that  a  government  board,  appointed  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  and  confirmed  by  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  representing  the  hundred  mil¬ 
lion  people  of  this  country,  entirely  free  from  bias  on  the 
side  either  of  capital  or  labor,  shall  determine  what  is  a  fair 
and  just  wage  to  the  men  who  carry  the  commerce  of  this 
country,  and  then  reflect  that  determination  back  into  the 
freight  and  passenger  rates,  and  make  it  a  charge  against 
the  shipping  public  of  America,  and  I  might  say  the  con¬ 
suming  public  of  America.  That  is  all  there  is  in  this  bill. 

But,  like  any  other  law  that  is  in  the  interest  of  the  peo¬ 
ple,  the  bill  says  that  if  you  do  not  comply  with  the  law, 
the  government  makes  you  comply  with  the  law.  What 
does  that  mean?  That  means  that  any  man  in  railroad  em¬ 
ploy  in  the  future,  if  the  terms  of  this  bill  are  adopted,  who 
is  not  satisfied  with  his  wage  or  his  working  conditions,  can 
carry  his  complaint  to  the  government  tribunal  without  let 
or  hindrance  from  anybody.  He  does  not  have  to  be  the 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


125 


tool  of  a  labor  organization  or  of  a  railroad  company.  He 
can  exercise  his  own  individual  rights,  and  have  the  govern¬ 
ment  determine  what  is  a  fair  and  just  wage.  I  say  that 
there  is  no  danger  of  the  government  doing  injustice  to  this 
great  body  of  citizens  of  America.  This  is  a  republican  gov¬ 
ernment,  a  free  government.  The  men  whose  wage  scale 
will  be  tried  in  this  government  court  cast  2,000,000  votes  in 
the  American  Republic.  Is  it  at  all  probable,  under  those 
conditions,  that  the  finding  of  that  board  is  going  to  be  un¬ 
just  and  inequitable  in  their  behalf? 

I  think  not.  If  there  is  any  bias  to  be  expected  on  either 
side,  it  will  fall  on  the  sidp  of  the  employee,  naturally,  but 
in  the  end  it  will  be  a  check  against  any  inordinate  increase 
of  wages  that  must  be  reflected  into  the  freight  rates  that 
must  be  paid  by  the  American  people. 

My  friend  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Stanley]  was 
contending  with  me  on  the  floor  a  day  or  two  ago  that  pos¬ 
sibly  an  increase  in  the  freight  rates  of  America  might  mean 
an  increased  charge  to  the  American  public  of  five  times  the 
amount  of  that  increased  rate.  I  am  going  to  apply  his  own 
argument  to  himself,  that  where  we  charge  $1  more  for 
freight  the  consuming  American  public  must  pay  $5  before 
its  food  and  its  clothes  come  to  its  homes. 

There  is  no  theory  about  the  proposition  which  I  am  now 
going  to  state.  Since  1916  and  largely  during  the  period  of 
the  Great  War  the  wage  of  the  railroad  workers  of  America 
has  increased  a  billion  dollars.  That  is  no  theory;  that  is 
a  fact.  A  billion  dollars!  If  those  who  contend  that  in¬ 
creasing  freight  rates  $1  reflects  $5  into  the  cost  of  the  prod¬ 
uct  when  it  reaches  the  ultimate  consumer  are  correct,  then 
we  are  to  believe  that  the  increase  of  $1,000,000,000  in  the 
labor  wage  of  the  American  railroad  employees  was  instantly 
reflected  into  the  freight  rates  because  it  could  not  be  paid 
anywhere  else. 

The  Director  General  of  Railroads  increased  the  freight 
rates  25  per  cent  and  the  passenger  rates  50  per  cent  through¬ 
out  America.  He  made  a  greater  increase  than  that,  because 
he  changed  classifications  in  many  particulars  that  amounted 
to  an  increase  in  freight  rates.  So  that  the  extent  that  the 
wage  scale  went  up  was  reflected  into  the  pockets  of  the 
men  who  ship  the  freight. 


126 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


That  being  the  case,  is  it  contended  that  that  billion  dol¬ 
lars  increase  in  wages  reflects  $5,000,000,000  in  the  pockets 
of  the  American  people?  If  it  does,  we  have  some  idea  of 
where,  at  least  in  part,  the  increased  cost  to  the  American 
people  comes  from. 

The  question  of  wage  scale  is  not  settled.  I  am  not  going 
to  pass  on  the  contention  as  to  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong. 

I  am  not  informed.  It  is  not  my  place  to  pass  on  it.  But 
we  know  that  the  men  engaged  in  the  railroad  world  to-day 
are  insisting  now  that  there  shall  be  a  further  increase  in 
wages.  They  may  be  right  or  they  may  be  wrong.  If  that 
wage  increase  is  anything  in  proportion  to  the  last  one, 
then  it  would  mean  another  billion  dollars,  and  if  the  argu¬ 
ment  about  freight  rates  as  made  by  some  here  is  correct, 
it  would  mean  reflecting  into  the  pockets  of  the  consuming 
masses  of  American  people  another  $5,000,000,000. 

Now,  can  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  because  it 
wants  to  be  just  to  labor,  because  it  wants  to  be  fair  to  la¬ 
bor,  ignore  labor  itself,  ignore  the  clerk  in  the  counting- 
house,  the  ditch  digger  in  the  street,  the  man  on  the  scaf¬ 
fold  building  the  great  buildings  of  America,  the  laborer  on 
the  farm,  and  say  that  an  organization  in  the  United  States 
composed  of  not  over  2,000,000  men  can  reflect  their  will 
and  through  the  power  of  the  threatened  strike  force  billions 
of  dollars  into  the  cost  of  living  of  the  American  people? 

That  is  the  issue  at  which  I  am  looking.  I  do  not  stand 
here  holding  a  brief  against  labor.  I  know  that  when  labor 
ceases  to  battle  upward  the  nation  is  dead;  but  when  one 
class  of  labor,  one  clan  in  the  great  body  politic  of  labor, 
desires  to  reserve  to  itself  the  right  to  stand  independent  of 
the  government,  to  exercise  its  right  or  the  so-called  privi¬ 
lege  to  strike  in  order  that  it  may  enforce  additional  bur¬ 
dens  011  the  masses  of  the  American  people,  then,  I  say,  the 
time  and  place  have  come  when  it  is  the  duty  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  to  function  in  the  matter. 

Do  not  tear  down  class  or  clan.  1  am  not  in  favor  of  de¬ 
stroying  union  labor.  I  think  union  organization  has  done 
great  things  for  labor,  and  sometimes  it  has  done  great  in¬ 
jury  to  labor.  I  am  not  with  union  labor  when  i't  seeks  to 
make  the  closed  shop  and  deny  to  other  men  the  right  to 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


127 


work.  I  am  not  with  union  labor  when  it  says  by  force  of 
arms,  the  force  of  the  power  to  strike,  that  “we  can  invade 
the  party  politic  and  make  the  American  public  pay  the  price, 
right  or  wrong.”  I  am  not  with  union  labor  then,  but  I  am 
with  union  labor  when  it  says,  “We  are  entitled  to  social 
justice.” 

That  is  the  high  ideal  of  all  labor,  the  uplifting  of  the 
home,  the  education  of  children,  the  upbuilding  of  society — 
all  that  is  theirs,  justly  theirs;  but  it  is  not  in  keeping  with 
the  exercise  of  the  brutal  power  of  the  savage  to  strike  down 
other  men  with  a  blow  in  order  that  they  may  take  home 
what  they  have  regardless  of  the  right  or  the  justice  in  the 
case.  When  you  say  that  labor  has  the  right  to  exercise  or 
bring  about  a  universal  railroad  strike  in  the  country,  to 
starve  the  American  people  into  submission  in  order  that  it 
may  dictate  to  them  its  will  and  put  its  penalties  on  the 
backs  of  the  American  people,  then  I  draw  the  line  and  I 
will  not  go  with  you. 

If  that  is  the  case,  if  that  is  the  justice  of  the  cause,  I 
say,  give  them  a  government  board  to  decide  what  is  a  just 
wage,  and  I  will  go  with  you  as  far  as  you  can  go  to  see  that 
that  board  is  just  and  fair  and  equitable.  Then  I  say  that 
the  decision  of  that  board  is  written  into  the  law  of  the  land, 
and  I  am  prepared  to  send  to  jail  the  man  who  defies  its  con¬ 
clusions,  like  I  am  prepared  to  send  to  jail  the  man  who  de¬ 
fies  the  law  of  the  land. 

The  great  sustaining  policy  of  the  American  Republic  is 
its  just  laws,  and  they  can  only  be  just  to  all  by  all  uphold¬ 
ing  them.  How  are  we  to  uphold  them?  We  can  not  up¬ 
hold  the  law  by  appealing  merely  to  the  conscience  of  men 
to  obey  the  law.  Most  men  obey  the  law  because  they  re¬ 
spect  it,  but  some  men  are  highwaymen  and  obey  no  law 
except  by  the  force  of  the  strong  arm  of  the  government. 

If  you  have  worked  out  abstract  justice  through  courts 
of  arbitration  and  the  final  court  of  the  government  to 
solve  the  question  in  the  interest  of  labor  and  have  pro¬ 
tected  the  American  public  against  unjust  demands,  and  at 
the  same  time  have  left  labor  free  to  exercise  its  individual 
liberty  and  quit  employment  when  it  elects,  so  long  as  it 
does  not  defy  the  law,  then  I  say  that  you  have,  as  this  bill 


128 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


does,  responded  to  all  the  demands  of  abstract  justice,  and 
the  man  who  defies  it  stands  in  defiance  of  the  law  and,  like 
other  lawbreakers,  should  be  punished. 


LIBERTY  AND  LAW  IN  KANSAS1 

Mow  the  Industrial  Court  Protects  the  Public,  Insures  Justice 
to  Labor,  and  Increases  Production 

The  Kansas  law  creating  a  Court  of  Industrial  Relations 
followed  the  coal  strike  of  last  winter.  It  is  not  the  result 
of  an  effort  to  legislate  against  either  employing  capital  or 
labor.  It  came  out  of  the  public  realization  of  the  suffering 
which  was  brought  by  industrial  warfare  upon  an  unpro¬ 
tected  people  who  had  no  part  in  bringing  on  the  general 
coal  strike  but  who  were  the  defenseless  victims  of  it. 

When  the  coal  strike  occurred,  this  section  of  the  country 
was  almost  entirely  without  fuel.  Within  two  weeks  there 
was  suffering.  The  state  took  over  the  mines  under  an  or¬ 
der  of  the  Supreme  Court  appointing  a  receivership.  Vol¬ 
unteers  were  called  to  operate  the  mines  for  the  purpose  of 
saving  the  public  from  the  disaster  of  the  coal  famine.  More 
than  11,000  Kansans  volunteered  their  services  within  twenty- 
four  hours  after  the  first  call. 

From  this  magnificent  offering  we  selected  a  sufficient 
number  of  men  to  man  the  strip  mines,  taking  the  personnel 
very  largely  from  those  who  had  been  in  the  army  service. 
In  ten  days  these  splendid  young  men,  who  volunteered  un¬ 
der  a  sense  of  patriotic  duty,  produced  enough  coal  to  re¬ 
lieve  the  emergencies  in  two  hundred  Kansas  communities. 
The  thermometer  was  below  zero  much  of  the  time,  and  the 
obstacles  were  almost  insuperable,  but  the  men  worked  from 
daylight  to  dark  and  very  few  of  them  ever  inquired  as  to 
v/hat  the  salary  for  their  labor  would  be.  They  were  paid 
$5-70  per  day,  which  was  the  average  wage  of  the  miners, 
but  they  worked  without  relation  to  hours. 

Purposes  of  the  Kansas  Law 

While  the  state  operation  was  still  in  progress,  a  special 
session  of  the  legislature  was  called  to  enact  a  law  creating 

1  By  Henry  J.  Allen,  Governor  of  Kansas,  in  Review  of  Reviews 
June,  1920. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


129 


an  industrial  court  for  the  purpose  of  placing  upon  the  state 
the  responsibility  of  regulating  industrial  strife.  The  law — 
which  creates  a  strong,  dignified  tribunal  vested  with  power, 
authority,  and  jurisdiction  to  hear  and  determine  all  contro¬ 
versies  which  may  arise  and  which  threaten  to  hinder,  de¬ 
lay,  or  suspend  the  operation  of  essential  industries — was 
passed  with  only  seven  votes  against  it  in  the  lower  house 
and  two  votes  against  it  in  the  Senate.  The  new  tribunal 
is  known  as  the  Court  of  Industrial  Relations,  composed  of 
three  judges  appointed  by  the  governor  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate.  The  terms  are  for  three  years  each 
and  are  arranged  so  that  #  they  overlap.  This  would  safe¬ 
guard  the  court  against  an  entire  change  of  personnel  under 
any  one  governor.  It  is  not  a  court  of  arbitration,  but  a 
court  of  justice. 

The  purpose  of  the  court  is — 

(a)  To  make  strikes,  lockouts,  boycotts,  and  blacklists  un¬ 
necessary  and  impossible,  by  giving  labor  as  well  as  capital 
an  able  and  just  tribunal  in  which  to  litigate  all  controver¬ 
sies. 

(b)  To  insure  to  the  people  of  this  state,  at  all  times,  an 
adequate  supply  of  those  products  which  are  absolutely  nec¬ 
essary  to  sustain  the  life  of  civilized  peoples. 

(c)  To  stabilize  production  of  these  necessaries,  so  that 
we  will  also,  to  a  great  extent,  stabilize  the  price  to  the  pro¬ 
ducer  as  well  as  the  consumer. 

(d)  To  insure  to  labor  steadier  employment,  at  a  fairer 
wage,  under  better  working  conditions. 

(e)  To  prevent  the  colossal  economic  waste  which  always 
attends  industrial  disturbances. 

The  basis  of  the  law  is  in  the  inherent  right  of  the  state 
to  protect  itself  and  its  members  against  anything  that  is 
prejudicial  to  the  common  welfare.  This  principle  has  been 
recognized  for  more  than  twenty  centuries.  It  was  inscribed 
upon  one  of  the  Twelve  Tables  of  the  Roman  Law:  Salus 
populi  suprema  lex. 

Effect  of  the  Lazv  Upon  Production 

Last  year,  for  the  first  three  months  of  the  period,  there 
were  something  over  forty  strikes  in  the  various  mines  of 
the  Kansas  district.  This  year  there  have  been  no  strikes. 
During  a  few  days  while  the  court  was  dealing  with  the 


130 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


refusal  of  Alexander  Howat  and  some  members  of  his  staff 
to  testify  in  a  case  which  was  brought  by  some  of  his  own 
union  miners,  there  was  a  temporary  shut-down  of  the  mines; 
but  the  actual  effect  of  the  law  upon  production  shows  that 
in  slightly  less  than  three  months  more  coal  has  been  pro¬ 
duced  in  the  Kansas  district  than  during  any  other  five  and 
a  half  months  in  the  history  of  that  district,  with  practically 
the  same  number  of  miners. 

One  of  the  strong  effects  of  the  law  is  in  the  power  of 
the  court  to  require  the  continuous  operation  of  industries, 
which  are  forbidden  to  shut  down  for  any  purpose  to  effect 
wage  controversies  or  the  price  of  the  commodity  to  the 
public.  In  the  past  years,  particularly  in  the  coal-mining  dis¬ 
trict,  the  mines  have  produced  very  indifferent  results  dur¬ 
ing  the  summer.  It  is  stated  that  an  average  of  one  day  per 
week  would  cover  the  operation  of  the  mines.  Under  the 
new  law,  the  operators  will  be  obliged  to  operate  with  rea¬ 
sonable  continuity,  with  the  result  that  we  will  begin  next 
winter  with  a  coal  reserve  instead  of  a  coal  famine.  This 
principle,  applied  to  all  of  the  essential  industries  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Kansas  court,  will  have  a  very  splendid 
result  in  stabilizing  the  market  as  well  as  providing  the  pub¬ 
lic  with  the  normal  output  of  production  under  favorable 
conditions. 


Adjusting  Miners’  Grievances 

Soon  after  the  court  was  created  four  hundred  miners 
quit  work  as  a  protest  against  the  law.  The  Attorney-Gen¬ 
eral  brought  before  him  the  officers  of  this  group,  who,  when 
they  understood  all  the  provisions  of  the  law,  ordered  their 
miners  back  to  work.  The  suspension  lasted  only  one  day. 

On  that  occasion,  a  group  of  miners  having  some  general 
grievances  brought  these  grievances  voluntarily  into  the 
court.  This  was  significant  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the 
method  prescribed  by  the  by-laws  of  the  miners’  union  ob¬ 
ligated  these  miners  to  bring  their  grievances  through  their 
local  and  district  officers.  But  instead  of  going  through  pre¬ 
scribed  channels,  these  miners  came  voluntarily  into  the 
court,  asking  for  the  adjudication  of  their  grievances. 

Alexander  Howat,  president  of  the  district,  called  a  meet¬ 
ing  of  his  war  council  and  passed  a  resolution  declaring  that 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


131 

any  miner  thereafter  who  should  bring  his  grievance  before 
the  industrial  court  would  be  fined  $50.  If  any  local  union 
or  officer  of  any  union  appealed  to  the  court  for  an  adjudi¬ 
cation  of  a  grievance,  that  officer  or  union  should  be  fined 
$5000.  In  spite  of  this  a  number  of  unions — including  the 
shot-firers,  who  affect  every  mine  iu  the  district — brought 
their  grievances  into  the  couit. 

During  the  hearings  of  the  court,  which  were  held  at  Pitts¬ 
burgh  in  the  center  of  the  mining  district,  the  most  sympa¬ 
thetic  and  cooperative  testimony  was  given  by  the  miners. 
A  number  of  very  revealing  conditions  were  brought  out, 
which  formed  the  basis  for  several  decisions  and  orders. 

For  example,  it  was  discovered  that  it  had  been  the  cus¬ 
tom  in  the  district  for  a  good  many  years  for  the  operators 
to  charge  the  miners  a  heavy  discount  if  their  wages  were 
paid  in  advance  of  the  regular  pay  day,  which  was  once  every 
two  weeks.  Miners  who  needed  the  wages  they  had  earned 
in  the  interim  would  collect  the  wages  already  earned,  but 
in  advance  of  pay  day,  and  the  operators  would  charge  them 
10  per  cent,  for  the  prepayment.  No  effort  had  ever  been 
made  to  correct  the  abuse.  The  court  corrected  it  at  once, 
establishing  the  order  that  a  miner  might  collect  wages  due 
him,  paying  only  a  minimum  fee  for  the  bookkeeping  charge 
made  necessary  in  the  advance  payment.  The  operators  did 
not  contest  the  order  of  the  industrial  court,  and  the  new 
system  is  now  working. 

Another  abuse  corrected  as  the  result  of  the  miners’  tes¬ 
timony  was  in  relation  to  the  charge  for  explosives.  Ever 
since  the  decision  of  the  National  Commission,  the  opera¬ 
tors,  who  were  commanded  to  sell  explosives  at  cost,  did  not 
state  the  price;  and  the  miners  were  obliged  to  do  their 
work  under  uncertainty  as  to  what  would  be  charged  for 
powder  and  dynamite.  Several  efforts  had  been  made  by 
miners  and  operators  to  secure  a  conference  on  this  subject 
with  th*  miners’  officials,  but  these  efforts  had  failed.  The 
court  established  a  fixed  price  for  explosives,  conditioned  up¬ 
on  the  cost.  This  decision  is  of  great  importance,  since  it 
involves  directly  the  wages  of  miners  who  mine  their  coal 
at  a  stated  price  per  ton  and  pay  out  of  this  the  cost  of  the 
explosives  which  they  require  for  their  work. 

The  testimony  of  the  shot-firers,  who  brought  their  case 


132 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


to  the  court  in  defiance  of  Alexander  Howat’s  threat  to  fine 
them  $5000,  exhibited  the  fact  that  for  three  years  they  had 
sought  in  vain  for  proper  consideration  of  their  grievances. 

Another  fact  produced  by  the  testimony  of  several  min¬ 
ers,  who  had  been  upon  a  strike  called  by  the  president  of 
the  district  in  the  mines  of  the  Central  Coal  and  Coke  Com¬ 
pany,  was  that  while  they  had  asked  repeatedly  for  a  state¬ 
ment  of  the  grievance  upon  which  the  strike  was  called, 
they  had  never  been  told  by  their  union  president  why  they 
were  striking.  They  had  been  idle  for  more  than  three 
months,  living  upon  meager  strike  benefits  without  any  intel¬ 
ligent  appreciation  as  to  why  they  were  idle.  They  had  lost  in 
wages  over  $800,000.  The  real  issue  upon  which  the  strike 
was  called  involved  less  than  $2000,  and  its  essence  was  a 
personal  grievance  on  the  part  of  the  president  of  the  dis¬ 
trict  against  the  operators  of  the  mine. 

Settling  a  Railroad  Strike 

Another  important  decision  of  the  court  related  to  the 
employees  of  the  Joplin  and  Pittsburgh  Interurban  Railway 
Company.  In  1914,  there  was  a  strike  of  eighty  days’  dura¬ 
tion,  costing  the  men  who  were  out  of  employment  several 
hundred  thousand  dollars.  The  road  connects  two  of  the 
most  important  mining  districts  in  the  Middle  West  in  the 
zinc  and  coal  fields.  The  strike  deprived  the  residents  of  this 
district  of  their  most  important  mode  of  transportation,  af¬ 
fecting  not  only  the  mining  and  commercial  interests,  but 
the  agricultural  interests.  In  1918,  while  the  country  was  in 
the  throes  of  war,  there  was  a  strike  of  thirty-six  days,  caus¬ 
ing  not  only  great  loss  to  both  the  wage-earners  and  the 
company,  but  shortage  of  production  and  general  disaster. 
In  March  of  the  present  year  another  strike  was  threatened, 
but  the  employees  of  the  road  brought  their  grievance  into 
the  Court  of  Industrial  Relations.  The  case  was  brought  on 
February  24,  and  in  less  than  three  weeks  a  hearing  was  had 
and  an  order  made  which  was  satisfactory  to  both  the  em¬ 
ployees  and  the  company. 

In  this  case  a  singular  evidence  was  given  of  the  confi¬ 
dence  of  both  sides  in  the  justice  of  the  court.  Only  a 
few  of  the  complainants  appeared  in  the  court,  although 
several  hundred  employees  were  involved.  The  order  was 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


133 


made  effective,  and  the  adjudication  occurred  without  the 
loss  of  a  moment  of  time.  Even  the  witnesses  who  appeared 
in  court  lost  less  than  a  day,  and  there  was  continuous  ser¬ 
vice  on  the  line  during  the  proceedings. 

Our  Typical  Cases 

There  are  in  the  court  to-day  three  cases  in  which  strikes 
were  threatened  and  would  doubtless  have  occurred  had  it 
not  been  for  the  law.  One  of  these  is  in  the  shop  and 
roundhouse  laborers  of  the  railroad  craft.  A  general  strike 
had  been  called,  but  the  national  executive  committee  of  the 
craft,  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote,  decided  that  in  Kansas 
the  action  should  be  determined  in  the  Court  of  Industrial 
Relations. 

The  case  of  the  inaintenance-of-way  men,  upon  which  a 
national  strike  is  also  threatened,  has  been  brought  into  the 
Kansas  court  for  settlement  so  far  as  that  state  is  con¬ 
cerned;  and  there  will  be  no  srtike  in  this  craft  in  Kansas. 

There  are  two  interurban  railway  cases,  in  which  strikes 
were  threatened,  but  both  grievances  have  been  brought  into 
the  Kansas  industrial  court  for  adjudication  and  the  roads 
are  running  without  loss  of  service  to  the  public  or  wages 
to  the  carmen. 

An  interesting  sidelight  upon  the  situation  occurred  in 
Kansas  City  some  weeks  ago,  when  the  bakers  of  Kansas 
City,  Kan.,  and  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  met  for  the  purpose  of 
ordering  a  strike.  The  Kansas  bakers  refused  to  go  out  be¬ 
cause  of  the  law  forbidding  shut-downs  in  this  industry,  and 
the  Missouri  bakers  declined  to  go  out  alone;  so  the  matter 
was  satisfactorily  adjudicated  without  their  going  out  in 
either  city. 

The  first  order  of  the  court,  soon  after  its  establishment, 
was  in  relation  to  a  wage  controversy  brought  by  electrical 
linemen  in  the  Edison  Company  at  Topeka.  It  was  for  an 
increase  in  wages.  The  testimony  clearly  revealed  the  fact 
that  the  operatives  of  this  department  of  public  service  were 
paid  less  than  the  trend  of  wages  for  expert  service  in  the 
district.  The  whole  subject  of  cost  of  living  and  comparison 
of  wages  was  gone  into.  The  court  granted  an  increase  of 
wages  to  the  men  that  was  entirely  satisfactory  to  them  and 
the  corporation — which  not  only  obeyed  the  order  of  the 


134 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


court  promptly,  but  made  the  increase  of  wages  retroactive 
to  cover  the  period  since  the  request  for  an  increase  was 
made.  No  time  was  lost  by  the  employees  during  the  ad¬ 
judication  of  this  controversy,  and  the  public  received  the 
benefit  of  continuous  operation  of  service. 

In  the  order  of  the  court  a  hint  as  to  the  spirit  of  this 
tribunal  may  be  had  from  the  following  quotation: 

The  court  is  very  desirious  to  do  nothing  in  this  case  which  will 
unduly  burden  the  respondent.  However,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
wages  to  labor  must  be  considered  before  dividends  to  the  investor,  and 
that  business  which  is  unable  to  pay  a  fair  rate  of  wage  to  its  em¬ 
ployees  will  eventually  have  to  liquidate.  The  Kansas  law  imposes  upon 
the  court  the  obligation,  so  far  as  it  has  power  to  do  so,  to  assure  to 
labor  a  fair  wage  and  to  capital  a  fair  return. 

The  Kansas  court  differentiated  between  a  living  wage 
and  a  fair  wage,  and  it  declared  a  fair  wage  to  be  that  which 
will  enable  the  workmen  to  procure  for  themselves  and  their 
families  all  the  necessaries  and  a  reasonable  share  of  the 
comforts  of  life. 

They  are  entitled  to  a  wage  which  will  enable  them  by  industry  and 
economy  not  only  to  supply  themselves  with  opportunities  for  intellectual 
advancement  and  reasonable  recreation,  but  also  to  enable  the  parents 
working  together  to  furnish  to  the  children  ample  opportunities  for  in¬ 
tellectual  and  moral  advancement,  for  education,  and  for  an  equal  op¬ 
portunity  in  the  race  of  life.  A  fair  wage  will  also  allow  the  frugal 
man  to  provide  reasonably  for  sickness  and  old  age. 

These  are  typical  cases  which  have  received  adjudication, 
and  in  all  of  them  the  benefits  arising  from  the  fact  that 
the  court  not  only  had  power  to  make  an  impartial  survey 
of  the  case,  but  also  the  power  to  render  final  decision,  was 
generally  recognized  by  the  public. 

The  “Outlaw”  Railroad  Strike  Fails 

We  suffered  less  in  Kansas  during  the  “outlaw”  railroad 
strike  than  elsewhere.  A  few  men  in  Rosedale  and  Argen¬ 
tine  went  out,  and  the  attorney-general  went  to  the  field  for 
the  purpose  of  taking  charge  of  the  situation.  After  a  few 
arrests  were  made,  practically  all  of  the  men  returned  to 
work.  These  cases  have  not  been  heard  as  yet  by  the  court. 
In  all  the  other  railroad  centers  of  the  state  there  were  no 
strikes,  the  leaders  being  opposed  to  placing  themselves  in 
violation  of  the  law. 

The  attitude  of  the  court  toward  the  interurban  lines  and 
the  lines  operating  within  the  state  has  brought  a  new  sense 
of  security  both  to  the  operators  and  operatives.  They  real- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


135 


ize  that  the  strike  is  no  longer  necessary;  that  all  their  griev¬ 
ances  are  justiciable  in  this  court. 

In  one  decision,  that  of  an  interurban  company,  both 
wages  and  traffic  rates  were  increased,  and  all  three  parties 
to  the  triangle — operators,  employees,  and  the  public — have 
recognized  the  justice  of  the  decision. 

No  grievances  have  beeng  filed  touching  the  packing,  mill¬ 
ing,  or  clothing  industries.  A  shut-down  was  threatened 
some  weeks  ago  in  the  packing  district  and  an  investigation 
was  started  by  the  court,  but  the  difficulty  passed  away"  with¬ 
out  the  necessity  of  court  action. 

One  of  the  direct  results  we  have  observed  in  the  opera¬ 
tion  of  the  court  is  that  it  reduces  the  poignancy  of  the  in¬ 
dustrial  quarrel.  The  mere  presence  of  an  impartial  court 
seems  to  have  encouraged  both  operators  and  operatives  to 
approach  each  other  in  a  new  spirit  of  conciliation. 

Protection  of  the  Public 

It  is  believed  that  the  law  is  going  to  prove  even  more 
effective  to  wage-earners  than  to  employers.  Naturally  the 
court  is  there  to  protect  the  weak  and  to  guarantee  justice. 
For  fifteen  or  twenty  years  we  have  gone  through  a  re¬ 
luctant  process  of  regulating  employing  capital.  Many  wrongs 
have  been  corrected  through  legislation.  Indeed,  practically  all 
of  the  progress  which  has  been  made  in  the  regulation  of 
working  conditions,  fair  wages,  and  hours  of  labor  have  come 
as  the  result  of  laws  looking  toward  justice. 

In  Kansas  a  few  years  ago  the  operators  maintained  that 
the  most  emphatic  of  all  evils  was  the  company  store,  in  which 
miners  made  purchases  with  company  script.  This  system  was 
wiped  out  by  State  legislation.  All  of  the  safety  appliances, 
working  conditions  in  mines,  modern  bath  houses  for  miners, 
and  rescue  stations  were  established  by  legislation.  The  rescue 
stations  are  operated  at  the  state  expense,  Kansas  being  one  of 
three  states  in  the  Union  to  adopt  this  system. 

The  entire  progress  of  legislation  has  been  along  lines 
favorable  to  the  workers,  and  the  Kansas  Court  of  Industrial 
Relations,  while  holding  this  to  be  a  paramount  consideration, 
has  had  to  look  to  the  necessity  of  protecting  the  public  as  well 
as  capital. 

The  difference  between  the  Kansas  effort  and  the  efforts  of 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


136 

compulsory  arbitration  in  Australia  and  other  countries  is  that 
in  laws  such  as  Australia  created  the  main  feature  is  the  protec¬ 
tion  of  arbitration  agreements.  In  Kansas  the  main  feature  is 
the  protection  of  the  public.  We  are  going  upon  the  broad 
principle  that  society  has  the  same  right  to  take  jurisdiction  over 
offenses  committed  in  the  name  of  industrial  warfare  that  she 
has  had,  through  all  the  evolution  of  government,  to  take  juris¬ 
diction  over  other  wrongs. 

The  quarrels  between  capital  and  labor  are  to-day  the  only 
ones  against  which  government  does  not  protect  the  public.  We 
have  done  away  with  every  form  of  private  conflict  from  duel¬ 
ing  to  fist  fighting,  save  alone  the  conflict  between  capital  and 
labor.  Eugene  V.  Debs,  in  his  testimony  in  the  Phelan  case, 
said,  “A  strike  is  war,  not  necessarily  war  of  blood  and  bullets, 
but  a  war  in  the  sense  that  it  is  a  conflict  between  two  contend¬ 
ing  interests  or  classes  of  interests/’ 

Kansas,  which  once  sympathized  altogether  with  labor,  as 
did  the  general  public,  out  of  a  realization  in  that  early  day  that 
the  employers  were  unduly  oppressive,  now  realizes  that  if 
capital  has  been  selfish  and  ruthless,  labor  has  shown  itself  to 
be  the  same;  and  the  general  demand  is  that  hereafter  the 
public  shall  be  considered  and  protected  against  industrial  war. 
The  real  purpose  of  the  Kansas  law  is  to  protect  men  in  their 
right  to  work,  rather  than  to  deny  them  the  right  to  quit. 

Our  union  labor  friends  forget  that  government  has  power 
to  protect  the  good  order  of  society  and  that  in  the  exercise  of 
this  power  it  has  taken  jurisdiction  over  the  most  sacred  re¬ 
lations  of  life.  The  relation  of  the  husband  and  wife,  of  the 
parent  and  the  child,  come  under  the  jurisdiction  of  our  courts. 
Government  says  to  rhe  parent  that  the  child  shall  not  work 
during  the  years  when  it  should  be  in  attendance  upon  the 
schools  of  education. 

I  think  the  finest  definition  I  have  ever  read  as  to  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  government  is  that  of  John  Adams,  who  declared  that 
the  chief  aim  of  government  is  justice.  This  is  the  chief  aim 
of  all  our  human  relations.  There  is  no  reason  why  industrial 
controversies  should  not  be  subject  to  the  rule  of  justice.  There 
is  only  one  source  upon  which  we  may  depend  for  its  impar¬ 
tial  standard,  for  its  dignified  utterance,  for  its  impartial  ad¬ 
ministration,  and  that  source  is  government. 

The  question  of  the  hour  is  as  to  whether  this  government 
shall  be  regulated  by  all  the  people  under  the  safeguard  of 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


137 


constitutional  majority,  or  whether  it  shall  be  regulated  by 
the  hard-and-fast  unionism  driven  forward  by  radical  and  un- 
American  labor  leaders.  If  moral  principles  do  not  exist  in 
American  institutions  for  the  establishment  of  government  over 
industrial  warfare,  then  American  institutions  are  doomed  to 
failure. 

Similar  Laws  in  Other  Communities 

The  fundamental  difference  between  the  Kansas  system  and 
that  proposed  by  the  President’s  second  Industrial  Conference 
lies  in  the  fact  that  the  Washington  conference,  which  pro¬ 
vided  an  elaborate  and  worthy  system  of  conciliation,  still  rec¬ 
ognizes  a  controversy  between  capital  and  labor  as  being  a 
private  quarrel.  There  is  no  protection  guaranteed  to  the  pub¬ 
lic.  The  Kansas  Court  of  Industrial  Relations  in  its  broad  in¬ 
herent  powers  maintains  the  same  possibilities  of  conciliation, 
welfare  work  and  group  discussion  that  are  provided  in  the 
report  of  the  second  Industrial  Conference,  but  when  all  of 
these  efforts  at  conciliation  have  failed  the  Kansas  court  takes 
charge  of  the  controversy  and  settles  it  upon  terms  which  give 
proper  recognition  to  the  public,  to  labor,  and  to  capital,  and 
makes  its  decision  final. 

I  believe  that  ten  State  legislatures  and  two  constitutional 
conventions  have  already  considered  the  Kansas  plan.  Nebraska 
wrote  into  her  new  constitution  last  winter  an  article  making 
it  mandatory  upon  the  next  legislature  to  adopt  a  Court  of 
Industrial  Relations,  with  the  intention  of  placing  all  indus¬ 
trial  controversies  under  the  regulation  of  the  State.  Illinois 
is  now  considering — with  prospect  of  success,  I  understand — the 
submission  of  such  an  article  in  her  new  constitution.  New 
York,  which  considered  the  principle  of  the  Kansas  court,  has 
made  some  legislation  along  compulsory  arbitration  which  marks 
an  advance.  Massachusetts  is  also  considering  with  deep  in¬ 
terest  industrial  court  legislation.  Oklahoma  is  doing  the  same. 
The  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  New  Orleans  tells  me  that  the 
new  Governor  of  Louisiana,  Parker,  hopes  to  secure  the  enact¬ 
ment  of  a  program  similar  to  ours. 

Considerable  is  said  about  the  failure  of  the  industrial  courts 
of  Australia  and  Canada  to  prevent  strikes.  In  Australia  the 
right  to  strike  is  not  prohibited,  and  a  provision  exists  in  some 
of  the  Australian  courts  for  an  appeal  to  the  Parliament,  and 
an  unfavorable  vote  in  either  branch  of  Parliament  wipes  out 


138 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


the  decision.  Obviously,  under  some  circumstances,  the  ten¬ 
dency  would  be  to  reduce  the  effectiveness  of  the  court.  Not¬ 
withstanding  this,  however,  the  codes  of  the  Australian  indus¬ 
trial  courts  have  grown  in  strength,  and  Australia  is  still  hold¬ 
ing  fast  to  the  process,  adding  new  purpose  and  new  scope  to 
an  effort  which  in  the  beginning  was  brought  about  by  labor 
unions  themselves  for  the  purpose  of  giving  effectiveness  to 
grievances. 

The  Canadian  act  of  190 7,  amended  in  1910,  provides  that 
where  a  strike  or  lockout  is  threatened  in  the  industries  of  rail¬ 
roads,  steamships,  telegraphs,  telephones,  and  mines,  and  before 
such  a  strike  or  lockout  can  legally  take  place,  the  parties  must 
refer  their  differences  to  a  board  for  settlement.  In  Canada 
each  party  to  the  dispute  appoints  a  member  to  the  board  of 
arbitration.  This  plan  contains  the  essential  defect  of  leaving 
the  public  out  of  consideration  and  of  placing  the  responsibility 
of  settlement  in  the  hands  of  interested  parties. 

Nevertheless,  in  1916,  out  of  182  applications  for  adjudica¬ 
tion  under  the  Canadian  law,  every  strike  was  averted  except 
two.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  United  States,  where  we  have 
no  laws  for  the  regulation  of  capital  or  labor,  321  strikes  oc¬ 
curred  during  October,  1916,  alone.  The  Labor  Review  for 
June,  1919,  says  that  in  1918  there  were  3181  strikes  in  the 
United  States  and  104  lockouts.  In  New  York  alone  there  were 
662  strikes  and  21  lockouts. 

The  most  distinguished  incident  of  effective  remedy  under 
an  impartial  tribunal  was  in  the  instance  of  the  anthracite  coal 
strike  by  the  committee  appointed  by  President  Roosevelt.  Ad¬ 
vocates  of  neither  side  were  on  this  board.  All  were  impar¬ 
tial  men.  It  was,  in  effect,  an  industrial  court.  The  agree¬ 
ments  which  resulted  from  that  impartial  tribunal  have  worked 
such  effectiveness  that  there  has  been  no  general  strike  in  the 
anthracite  coal  district  since  that  time. 

Outlook  for  the  Future 

Whatever  tendencies  may  be  marked  at  this  hour  touching 
the  migration  of  labor  indicate  that  Kansas  is  to  receive  the 
friendly  consideration  of  conservative  union  men.  Various 
threats  have  been  made  by  Alexander  Howat  that  union  labor 
would  leave  the  State.  It  is  possible  that  the  more  radical 
type  of  union  leadership  will  go  to  fields  where  they  still  have 
the  privilege  to  menace  government;  but  in  Kansas  the  conser- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


139 


vative  type,  a  large  percentage  of  whom  own  their  own  homes, 
welcomes  the  advent  of  government  into  the  situation,  and  I 
believe  we  will  build  in  Kansas  the  mecca  of  a  new  type  of 
industrial  activity. 

In  the  other  unionized  trades  the  criticism  of  the  Kansas 
law  is  confined  very  largely  to  the  leaders,  who  realize  that  the 
success  of  the  law  reduces  the  need  of  the  radical  type  of 
leadership  and  makes  of  the  union  a  more  benevolent  type  of 
organization,  standing  for  the  benefit  of  its  members,  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  its  contracts,  and  the  progressive  study  of  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  the  crafts.  One  of  the  most  interesting  experiments 
now  being  carried  on  under  .the  industrial  court  is  the  welfare 
canvass  which  is  now  being  made  in  the  Pittsburgh  district. 
Not  only  the  miners  themselves,  but  also  their  wives,  are  taking 
a  keen  interest  in  the  effort  of  the  court  to  establish  better 
housing,  working,  and  living  conditions  in  all  cases  where  ma¬ 
terial  improvement  is  necessary. 

In  conclusion,  I  am  glad  to  say  that  there  is  a  growing 
tendency  to  believe  in  the  industrial  court ;  and  this  confidence 
will  grow  with  the  growth  of  understanding  of  the  decisive 
benefits  it  bestows  upon  labor.  Capital,  which  did  not  welcome 
the  court,  is  not  fighting  it  openly  and  is,  I  believe  somewhat 
impressed  with  the  fact  that  impartial  justice  will  not  be  as 
expensive  as  industrial  warfare  has  been,  because  through  the 
operation  of  the  court  we  save  economic  waste. 


GOVERNOR  ALLEN’S  DISCOVERY1 

The  most  significant  thing  that  has  happened  to  us  within  the 
last  thirty  years  is  the  merging  of  our  large  industrial  con¬ 
cerns  into  what  we  call  trusts.  This  merging  has  given  these 
concerns  a  power  beside  which  the  political  state  becomes  a 
mere  handcuffed  David  fighting  Goliath.  Our  so-called  efforts 
to  “bust”  them  has  been  admittedly  so  unsuccessful  as  to  make 
it  almost  humorous.  This  monopoly  in  industry  follows  so 
inevitably  and  so  irrevocably  the  laws  of  industrial  progress 
that  no  less  an  expert  than  the  late  J.  Pierpont  Morgan 
characterized  our  futile  trust-busting  efforts  as  attempts  to  un¬ 
scramble  the  egg.  In  our  legislative  halls  their  power  is  so 

1  Buffalo  Commercial,  April  20,  1920. 


140 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


strongly  felt  that  we  refer  to  it  as  the  power  of  the  invisible 
government. 

Now  side  by  side  with  these  gigantic  merchantile  combina¬ 
tions,  union  labor  ever  increasing  in  power  has  come  to  th~. 
front  within  the  last  twenty  years.  Even  now  in  two  of  th... 
essential  industries,  mining  and  railroad,  the  mere  talk  of  a 
strike  is  sufficient  to  throw  the  whole  nation  into  a  state  of 
worry  bordering  on  despair.  And  now  that  the  railroad  workers 
have  gone  into  business  on  their  own  hook  on  a  rather  extensive 
scale,  manufacturing  wearing  apparel  to  be  sold  to  the  workers 
at  greatly  reduced  price,  their  power  is  growing  by  leaps  and 
bounds.  Within  two  years,  or  three  or  four  at  the  most,  it  is 
alleged,  no  power  now  residing  in  the  political  state  can  hope 
to  compete  with  them.  They  will  be  able  to  get  for  themselves 
what  working  hours  they  want,  and  their  wages  will  be  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  their  own  determination. 

These  are  the  two  most  remarkable  things  that  have  hap¬ 
pened  to  us  within  the  last  three  decades.  And  while  to  most 
of  our  citizens  these  things  are  admitted  to  be  of  the  utmost 
importance,  except  for  idly  ranting  about  them,  or  attempting 
to  legislate  against  them  in  shameful  futility,  our  so-called 
political  leaders  have  not  concerned  themselves  with  these 
sinister  portents  of  impending  conflict.  They  go  about  like  Don 
Quixote  of  old,  mouthing  fine  phrases  and  storming  windmills. 
They  are  as  oblivous  to  the  things  that  threaten  us  and  to  any 
effective  remedy  for  them,  as  an  ostrich  with  his  head  in  the 
sand  is  oblivious  to  the  man  on  horse-back  pursuing  him. 

Now  this  discovery  which  Governor  Allen  has  made  is 
nothing  more  than  this : 

In  compensation  for  the  growth  of  power  of  our  industrial 
organizations ,  labor  on  the  one  hand,  and  capital  on  the  other, 
in  order  to  compete  with  these  two  groups,  and  in  order  to 
protect  the  public  against  depredations  from  either  or  both, 
the  political  state  must  assume  power  greater  than  can  be 
zvielded  by  either  or  both  of  these. 

Hence:  The  state  Industrial  Court,  which  in  this  matter  is 
the  highest  legitimate  and  legal  expression  of  the  will  of  the 
people,  and  which  today  is  as  superior  to  these  groups  as  the 
Governor  of  Kansas  is  superior  officially  to  the  president  of  the 
Topeka  chamber  of  commerce,  or  to  the  president  of  the  brick¬ 
layer’s  union. 

This  power  invested  in  the  Industrial  Court  is  so  reason- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


141 

able  and  so  sane  from  the  standpoint  of  public  safety,  and  so 
simple  to  understand,  that  about  all  there  is  left  to  wonder  about 
in  connection  with  it  is  why  some  one  hasn’t  thought  of  it 
before.  The  ordinary  citizen  who  has  time  to  read  and  to  re¬ 
flect  on  the  events  of  the  day,  who  is  blinded  neither  by  parti- 
zan  politics  nor  by  desire  to  get  a  political  office,  has  seen  long 
ago  the  need  for  some  such  machinery  to  curb  the  growing 
power  of  the  two  opponents  in  industry,  and  since  this  Indus¬ 
trial  Court  promises  to  deal  fairly  with  the  claims  of  both, 
holding  fast,  however,  as  its  highest  ideal,  to  the  welfare  of 
the  general  public,  he  takes  to  the  Kansas  remedy  for  indus¬ 
trial  disputes  as  a  duck  takes  to  water. 

Governor  Allen  is  seeking  to  give  us  something  vital  and  of 
immediate  concern  to  us : — an  increased  production  and  conse¬ 
quent  lowering  of  the  cost  of  living  through  the  abolition  of 
the  strike  in  order  of  size,  smallest  first. 


BRIEF  EXCERPTS 

This  [Kansas  industrial  court  lawl  is  the  most  compre¬ 
hensive  attempt  yet  made  to  protect  the  public  in  cases  of  in¬ 
dustrial  disputes  likely  to  affect  its  interests. — Monthly  Labor 
Review.  10:809.  March ,  1920. 

Compulsory  Arbitration  has  worked  well  in  New  Zealand: 
since  its  introduction  [to  date,  1912]  only  four  or  five  unim¬ 
portant  strikes  have  taken  place,  sweating  seems  to  have  been 
practically  eradicated,  the  decisions  of  the  court,  with  a  few 
trivial  exceptions,  have  been  loyally  obeyed,  and  the  industry 
of  the  colony  has  grown  enormously.— A  dams  and  Summer. 
Labor  Problems,  p.  324. 

Freedom  of  contract  is  a  qualified  and  not  an  absolute  right. 
There  is  no  absolute  freedom  to  do  as  one  wills  or  to  contract 
as  one  chooses.  The  guarantee  of  liberty  does  not  withdraw 
from  legislative  supervision  that  wide  department  of  activity 
which  consists  in  the  making  of  contracts  or  deny  to  govern¬ 
ment  the  power  to  provide  restrictive  safeguards.  Liberty  im¬ 
plies  the  absence  of  arbitrary  restraint — not  immunity  from 
reasonable  regulations  or  prohibitions  imposed  in  the  interests 
of  the  community. — C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Maguire,  210  U.  S. 

549- 


142 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Three  clays  ago  in  St.  Louis  there  met  the  executive  com¬ 
mittee  of  all  the  barrow-wheelers,  the  men  who  work  in  the 
sand-pits,  that  order  of  the  railroad  craft  which  is  just  be¬ 
low  the  maintenance  of  Way  men,  and  they  talked  about  their 
strike  and  by  a  vote  of  seven  to  two  they  declared  that  they 
would  strike  in  every  state  in  the  Union  except  the  state  of 
Kansas  (Applause),  and  in  the  State  of  Kansas  they  would 
bring  their  cause  into  the  Court  of  Industrial  Relations. — Gov. 
Henry  J.  Allen.  Law  and  Labor.  2:88  April ,  1920. 

“Down  in  the  Kansas  mining  district,”  said  Gov.  Allen, 
“the  miners  have  run  about  a  day  in  a  week  in  the  summer¬ 
time,  Why?  They  didn’t  want  to  make  any  reserve  of  coal. 
They  preferred  to  sell  upon  a  market  that  was  short.  Un¬ 
der  this  law  there  is  no  shutdown.  We  have  produced  in  the 
last  three  months  more  coal  than  ever  was  produced  in  any 
other  five  and  a  half  months  of  operation.  That  means  that 
the  miners  have  been  steadily  employed  and  that  next  winter 
Kansas  will  begin  with  a  coal  reserve  instead  of  a  coal  famine. 
— New  York  Times,  April  23,  1920. 

If  there  are  courts  in  this  country  set  up  (and  there  are 
federal  and  state  courts)  for  the  purpose  of  adjuticating 
claims  and  contentions  between  individual  citizens,  in  the  name 
of  sense  aren’t  the  American  people  wise  enough,  big  enough, 
strong  enough  and  fair  enough  to  set  up  in  this  country  courts 
where  differences  between  the  employer  and  the  employee 
groups  can  be  adjudicated  and  adjusted  without  carrying  on  in¬ 
dustrial  warfare  that  means  irremediable  damage  to  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people  and  to  the  public? — Governor  John  J.  Cornwell  of 
West  Virginia.  Law  and  Labor.  2:83.  April,  1920. 

Perhaps  nothing  so  completely  demonstrates  the  strength  of 
the  New  Zealand  system  of  arbitration  and  its  underlying  basis 
of  social  justice,  as  the  Dominion’s  experiences  with  syndicalism 
and  the  efforts  of  the  syndicalists  to  carry  out  a  general  strike, 
during  the  latter  part  of  1911,  1912,  and  1913.  The  effort  was 
a  complete  failure ;  and  although  more  than  fifty  strikes  were 
called  during  the  period,  all  of  them  were  lost;  direct  action 
was  thoroughly  discredited;  the  arbitration  system  and  the 
government  which  stood  sponsor  for  it  emerged  from  the  con¬ 
test  with  added  glory. — Mote.  Industrial  Arbitration,  p.  145. 

It  is  claimed  that  involuntary  servitude  is  involved  in  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration.  But  that  cannot  be  called  involuntary  ser- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


143 


vitude  into  which  a  man  voluntarily  enters.  Nobody  is  obliged 
to  become  an  engineer  or  a  fireman,  but  if  a  man  voluntarily 
becomes  an  engineer  or  a  fireman,  the  government  has  the 
power  to  make  him  keep  his  contract.  This  was  expressly  held 
by  the  Supreme  Court  in  Robertson  v.  Baldwin,  165  U.  S.  281. 
The  court  said  that  a  service  which  was  knowingly  and  will¬ 
ingly  entered  into  could  not  be  called  involuntary. — Everett  P. 
Wheeler,  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  of  Political  Science, 
7:85.  January,  1917. 

The  purpose,  of  the  section  of  the  bill  at  which  the  amend¬ 
ment  is  aimed  is  to  substitute  law  for  force  in  the  settlement 
of  disputes  between  citizens.  The  entire  principle  of  orderly 
government  is  involved.  It  is  only  from  the  tolerant  indiffer¬ 
ence  of  the  American  people,  inculcated  by  the  great  fortune 
which  we  have  enjoyed  and  the  abounding  riches  of  the  land, 
that  we  have  tolerated  so  long  the  violence,  the  intimidation, 
the  suffering,  and  the  death  which  have  come  from  the  common 
practice  of  the  use  of  force  in  the  form  of  the  suppression  of 
industries  essential  to  life  as  a  means  of  settling  private  di?/- 
putes. — Senator  Miles  Poindexter,  Congressional  Record, 
December  18,  1919. 

The  Industrial  Court  [of  Kansas]  provides  an  open  door 
for  labor;  a  tribunal  to  see  that  labor  gets  all  that  it  is  en  * 
titled  to  get  and  gets  it  without  the  old  strong-arm  methods 
of  strikes  and  riots.  It  pledges  the  good  faith  of  the  State 
to  see  that  labor’s  rights  are  protected  and  at  the  same  time 
that  capital  is  not  endangered.  But  above  all,  the  Kansas  In¬ 
dustrial  Court  bill  is  a  public-welfare  measure.  It  is  not,  prop¬ 
erly  speaking,  an  arbitration  bill.  It  is  not,  as  labor  represen¬ 
tatives  call  it,  an  “antistrike”  bill.  It  is  a  bill  to  give  the  pub¬ 
lic  that  protection  which  the  people  can  not  get  outside  of 
government  activity,  and  every  restriction  of  the  measure  on 
capital  and  on  labor  alike  is  merely  incidental  to  the  protection 
of  the  people. — Kansas  City  (Kan.)  Times. 

If  the  public  is  disposed  to  protect  absolutely  everyone 
against  imposition  on  the  part  of  capital  or  labor  it  should 
not  depend  upon  voluntary  arbitration  but  should  establish  and 
administer  laws  which  will  have  complete  jurisdiction  over 
both  groups  of  citizens,  and  then  to  rely  upon  the  continuance 
without  interruption  of  the  enforcement  of  law  and  order,  so 
that  every  individual  or  interest  shall  be  protected  in  freedom 


144 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


of  action  or  nonaction  so  long  as  there  is  no  opposition  to 
any  of  the  statutes  in  force.  Employers  and  the  body  of  em¬ 
ployes  clearly  recognize  that  it  is  for  the  pecuniary  interest  ol 
both  to  maintain  peaceful  and  friendly  relations,  and  every 
honestminded  person  admits  this  will  redound  to  the  benefit  and 
comfort  of  the  general  public. — Judge  Gary,  Chairman  of  Ex¬ 
ecutive  Board,  U.  S.  Steel  Corporation.  Iron  Trade  Review. 
66:171.  January  8,  1920. 

It  is  hereby  declared  and  determined  to  be  necessary  for 
the  public  peace,  health  and  general  welfare  of  the  people  of 
this  state  that  the  industries,  employments,  public  utilities  and 
common  carriers  herein  specified  shall  be  operated  with  rea¬ 
sonable  continuity  and  efficiency  in  order  that  the  people  of 
this  state  may  live  in  peace  and  security,  and  be  supplied  with 
the  necessaries  of  life.  No  person,  firm,  corporation,  or  asso¬ 
ciation  of  persons  shall  in  any  manner  or  to  any  extent,  will¬ 
fully  hinder,  delay,  limit  or  suspend  such  continuous  and  ef¬ 
ficient  operation  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the  purpose  and 
intent  of  the  provisions  of  this  act;  nor  shall  any  person,  firm, 
corporation,  or  association  of  persons  do  any  act  or  neglect  or 
refuse  to  perform  any  duty  herein  enjoined  with  the  intent  to 
hinder,  delay,  limit  or  suspend  such  continuous  and  efficient 
operation  as  aforesaid,  except  under  the  terms  and  conditions 
provided  by  this  act. — Section  6  of  the  Kansas  Industrial  Court 
Law,  1920. 

No  capitalist  has  the  right  to  close  down  his  works  in  order 
that  he  may  make  a  higher  profit  after  a  while  while  he  freezes 
the  American  people  for  lack  of  fuel.  No  laborer  has  the 
right  to  go  out  and  yhut  off  the  production  of  coal  at  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  November,  when  winter  is  just  beginning,  in  order 
that  he  may  have  a  higher  wage  or  shorter  hours. 

When  that  sort  of  thing  occurs,  then  these  80,000,000  people 
have  something  to  say;  and,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  and  I 
represent  them  here — and  through  my  voice,  if  through  nobody 
else’s — they  shall  be  heard;  and  their  voice  is,  “A  plague  upon 
both  your  houses.”  Obey  the  law.  “Submit  your  differences 
to  just  arbitrament.  Leave  me  and  my  wife  and  my  children 
free  of  murder  at  your  hands,”  whether  by  capitalists  closing 
down  the  coal  mines  or  by  labor  closing  them  down,  or  whether 
by  capital  or  labor,  either  one  or  both,  shutting  off  trans¬ 
portation. — Senator  John  Sharp  Williams,  Congressional  Record 
December  18,  1919. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


145 


Take  for  example  the  [Railroad]  strike  that  was  threatened 
last  August  [1916].  I  was  in  Chicago  at  the  time,  and  with  a 
good  many  other  New  Yorkers  was  much  in  doubt  as  to 
whether  I  could  exercise  the  right  to  get  home.  In  Chicago  dur¬ 
ing  that  last  week  before  the  fatal  Monday,  the  4th  of  Septem¬ 
ber,  the  trains  were  running  all  night,  bringing  provisions  into 
that  city  which  on  the  following  Monday  under  the  decree  of 
the  brotherhood  was  to  be  blockaded.  The  city  was  to  get  no 
milk,  no  wheat,  no  grain,  no  food  of  any  sort — if  was  to  be 
starved  out.  Is  that  a  right  to  be  protected  by  the  constitution — 
the.  right  to  starve  people?  The  cities  in  this  counry  now  con¬ 
tain  half  of  the  whole  American  population.  The  fact  that  we 
live  in  cities  prevents  us  from  raising  our  own  food.  Is  it  not 
within  the  power  of  the  government  to  provide  a  method  by 
which  such  forcible  blockades  can  be  prevented? — Everett  P. 
Wheeler.  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  of  Political  Science. 
7 184.  January,  1917. 

The  preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  re¬ 
cites  that  the  Constitution  is  adopted,  among  other  purposes, 
to  insure  domestic  tranquillity.  Without  some  means  of  pre¬ 
vention  of  nation-wide  railroad  strikes  there  can  be  no  assur¬ 
ance  of  domestic  tranquillity  in  this  country.  By  the  Con¬ 
stitution  Congress  is  given  power  to  regulate  commerce  among 
the  several  States.  To  regulate  commerce  among  the  several 
States  certainly  includes  the  power  to  prevent  interference 
therewith  or  extinction  thereof ;  without  railroad  transporta¬ 
tion  there  can  be  but  little  commerce  among  the  states.  In- 
serference  with  the  United  States  mail  is  unlawful  and  punish¬ 
able.  Why  should  not  interference  with  interstate  commerce  be 
made  unlawful  and  punishable?  Transmission  of  the  mail  is 
only  one  phase  of  interstate  commerce.  Transportation  of 
passengers  and  freight  is  of  more  vital  importance  than  trans¬ 
mission  of  mail. — Senator  Henry  L.  Myers.  Congressional 
Record.  December  8,  1919. 

Judges  decide  questions  of  rent  between  landlord  and  tenant 
in  Ireland.  Judges  in  this  country  run  railroads  as  receivers 
and  fix  prices  of  all  kinds  for  laborers  and  shippers,  for  goods 
and  supplies.  Judges  decide  between  opposing  interests  as  to 
amount  of  alimony,  allowances  in  Probate  Court,  and  awards 
for  damages.  In  bankruptcy  and  receivership  proceeding  they 
deal  with  the  most  complicated  questions  of  commerce  and  fi- 


146 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


nance.  They  have  power  greater  than  the  jury  in  settling  the 
prices  at  which  we  sell  our  legs  and  arms  to  the  railroad  com¬ 
panies  at  unguarded  grade  crossings.  Amateur  judges  and  pro¬ 
fessional  judges  have  shown  themselves  able  in  all  kinds  of 
arbitration  proceedings  to  make  decisions  that  were  just  and 
acceptable  to  both  sides.  Even  if  the  presiding  judge  of  the 
arbitration  court  with  a  casting  vote  were  a  “tool  of  the  cap¬ 
italists”  the  grist  of  this  mill  could  not  but  be  better  than  the 
grist  of  the  injunction  mill. — Henry  D.  Lloyd  in  “ Capital  and 
Labor”  p.  185. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  arbitration  acts  in  Australia  have 
done  much  good  in  the  way  of  abolishing  sweating  in  factories 
and  other  places.  It  must  also  be  conceded  that  the  great  ex¬ 
pansion  of  unionism  of  late  years  (about  60  per  cent  of  working 
men,  and  over  20  per  cent  of  working  women  in  Australia  are 
members  of  trades-unions)  has  been  aided  by  arbitration,  be¬ 
cause  of  its  compulsory  rule  that  all  must  register  in  an  in¬ 
dustrial  body  before  they  can  have  any  status  in  the  court. 

Then  again,  the  whole  matter  of  “preference  to  unionists” 
may  be  said  to  lie  at  the  door  of  industrial  arbitration,  since 
it  compels  men  to  organize  themselves  in  a  union  to  secure  ad¬ 
vantages  which  those  outside  unions  cannot  obtain.  That  will 
be  admitted  by  most  workers  in  Australia.  But  for  the  arbitra¬ 
tion  courts,  and  its  compulsory  registration  requirements,  it  is 
doubtful  whether  we  would  have  ever  had  the  “preference  to 
unionists”  clause.  We  must  admit  then  that  we  have  secured 
some  advantages  from  arbitration,  if  only  from  the  point  of 
making  us  strong  industrially. — W.  F.  Ahearn.  Reconstruction. 
2 124.  January,  1920. 

Under  the  present  conditions,  the  railway  employees  feel  that 
they  cannot  surrender  their  right  to  strike.  The  necessity  would 
no  longer  exist  for  the  exercise  of  this  power,  if  there  were  a 
wage  commission  which  would  secure  them  just  wages. 

. A  strike  in  the  army  or  navy  is  mutiny  and  uni¬ 
versally  punished  as  such.  The  same  principle  is  applied  to 
seamen  because  of  the  public  necessity  involved.  A  strike 
among  postal  clerks,  as  among  the  teachers  of  our  public 
schools,  would  be  unthinkable.  In  all  these  cases  the  employ¬ 
ment,  to  borrow  a  legal  phrase,  is  affected  with  a  public  use; 
and  this  of  necessity  qualifies  the  right  of  free  concerted  ac¬ 
tion  which  exists  in  private  employments. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


147 


However,  if  the  principle  be  accepted  that  there  are  certain 
classes  of  service  thus  affected  with  a  public  interest  and  men 
who  enter  them  are  not  free  concertedly  to  quit  the  service, 
then  these  men  must  be  guarded  in  the  matter  of  wages  and  con¬ 
ditions  by  public  protection ;  and  this  it  is  believed  can  best 
be  done  through  an  interstate  wage  commission. — Report  of  the 
Board  of  Arbitration  in  the  Matter  of  the  Controversy  be- 
tiveen  the  Eastern  Railroads ,  and  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomo¬ 
tive  Engineers,  1912. 

It  [compulsory  arbitration]  has  often  been  supposed  to  have 
the  effect  of  weaking  organization  among  the  workers,  but  such 
is  not  the  case  in  Australia,  where  the  unions  are  largely  in¬ 
strumental  in  initiating  board  proceedings  and  nominating  board 
members.  The  law  of  Queensland  is  partially  due  to  the  insis¬ 
tence  of  trade  unions  upon  legal  regulation  Taking  Australia 
as  a  whole  we  find  that,  according  to  Mr.  Knibbs,  the  Com¬ 
monwealth  statistician,  the  estimated  membership  of  all  unions 
increased  from  54,888  in  1891  to  97,174  in  1901.  Wage  regula¬ 
tion  during  this  period  was  at  a  minimum.  But  from  1901  to 
1912  the  number  of  union  members  increased  from  97,174  to 
433,224.  This  increase  has  been  accompanied  by  the  concentra¬ 
tion  of  members  into  larger  unions.  Federated  unions,  en¬ 
couraged  by  the  Commonwealth  act,  are  increasing  in  number 
In  New  Zealand,  under  compulsory  arbitration,  organization 
has  been  especially  encouraged.  The  membership  of  the  em¬ 
ployees’  industrial  unions  increased  from  8,230  in  1896  to  71,544 
in  1913.  Likewise,  in  Western  Australia  and  New  South 
Wales,  where  trade  unions  are  registered  under  the  arbitration 
act,  unionism  has  been  strengthened  and  consolidated. — Paul  S. 
Collier.  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  of  Political  Science. 
7:33.  January,  1917. 

My  opinion  is  that  when  the  Kansas  law  has  been  upon 
our  statute  books  for  a  year,  its  best  friends  will  be  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  union  labor,  because  it  offers  to  them  final  decision. 
Continuously  the  Court  is  deliberating  upon  labor  conditions, 
housing  conditions,  living  conditions,  working  conditions ;  and 
the  miners  of  the  bituminous  district  whose  activity  brought  on 
the  Court  are  today  eargerly  and  anxiously  waiting,  hoping  for 
the  success  of  the  Court.  Why?  Because  it  keeps  them  in 
continuous  employment.  Their  radical  leaders  cannot  call  them 
out  on  strike.  That  is  one  reason,  and  the  other  reason  is  that 


148  COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


it  provides  that  the  mining  operators  shall  preserve  a  reason¬ 
able  continuity  of  operation  which  has  not  been  done  in  past 
years  in  Kansas,  where  the  coal  mines  have  operated  during  the 
summer  months  about  one  day  a  week.  Why?  Well,  it  seems 
to  be  a  more  attractive  proposition  to  sell  coal  on  a  market 
that  is  a  little  short  of  coal  than  on  any  other  sort  of  market ; 
and  so  our  mining  operators  have  operated  in  that  way.  The 
new  law  will  make  it  not  only  possible  for  the  miners  to  work 
the  summer  through,  but  it  will  stabilize  the  coal  business ;  and 
we  in  Kansas  will  begin  the  winter  with  a  coal  reserve,  instead 
of  a  coal  famine;  and  it  is  a  very  desirable  thing;  the  law 
works  both  ways. — Gov.  Henry  J.  Allen.  Law  and  Labor.  2:89. 
April,  1920 

WORK  OF  STATE  BOARDS  OF  VOLUNTARY  ARBITRATION 

AND  CONCILIATION1 


Years  Number  Settled  by  Settled  by 

State  covered  of  strikes  arbitration  conciliation 

Illinois  .  1895-1899  1128  7  22 

Massachusetts  ....  1894-1900  516  53  72 

New  York  .  1894-1900  2156  xi  76 

Ohio  .  1893-1899  744  8  35 


1  Adams  and  Sumner.  Labor  Problems,  p.  299. 


NEGATIVE  DISCUSSION 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  IN  THE  RAIL¬ 
ROAD  ENGINEERS’  AWARD1 

The  most  important  recent  development  in  industrial  affairs 
is  the  award  of  the  special  commission  appointed  to  adjust  the 
differences  between  the  eastern  railroad  companies  and  their 
organized  locomotive  engineers.  In  addition  to  performing  that 
duty  the  commission  made  a  recommendation  in  comparison 
with  which  all  other  issues  dwindle  into  insignificance.  This 
recommendation  proposes  compulsory  arbitration  to  secure  “per¬ 
manent  peace”  between  the  railroads  and  their  employes. 

Everybody  recognizes  that  peace  is  a  desirable  goal,  that 
war  is  destructive  and  an  interruption  of  progress.  But  in  our 
zeal  to  reach  this  ideal  let  us  beware  lest  we  sacrifice  justice 
and  freedom  to  peace;  lest  we  forget  the  ancient  chains  that 
held  men  in  bondage.  Peace  under  this  fair  sounding  name 
is  not  of  a  nature  to  promote  human  welfare. 

It  is  an  unworthy  desire  that  wants  peace  at  any  price,  for 
we  know  that  peace  may  follow  the  recognition  of  just  claims 
and  ideals,  and  “peace”  may  exist  because  men  are  shackled, 
powerless  to  protect  themselves.  Only  peace  with  honor  and 
freedom  will  be  tolerated  by  men  of  nobler  ideals.  Compulsory 
arbitration  means  not  peace  of  that  sort, — but  peace  at  any 
price,  any  sacrifice  of  rights,  liberty  and  individuality,  while 
the  moral  self  grows  flabby  and  soft. 

Because  of  the  importance  of  the  board’s  recommendation,  it 
behooves  organized  labor  to  study  the  award  and  the  recom¬ 
mendation  with  greatest  care. 

The  board  making  the  report  was  selected  to  adjust  diffi¬ 
culties  arising  out  of  specific  wage  demands.  Last  January  the 
Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineer  presented  to  the  railroads 
a  series  of  proposals  involving  uniform  rates  of  pay,  uniform 
classifications  of  service,  and  uniform  working  rules  through¬ 
out  the  eastern  division. 

1  Samuel  Gompers,  President,  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Ameri¬ 
can  Federationist.  20:17-31.  January,  1913. 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


150 

There  are  fifty-two  railroads  in  the  eastern  division,  com¬ 
prising  practically  all  roads  east  of  Chicago  and  north  of  the 
Norfolk  and  Western  Railroad. 

In  1910  these  railroads  operated  more  than  one-fourth  of 
the  total  mileage  of  American  railroads,  or  over  66,000  miles 
of  track.  They  carried  about  one-half  of  the  freight  traffic  of 
the  United  States  and  more  than  two-fifths  of  the  passengers. 
The  companies  in  1910  paid  their  engineers  about  $38,000,000  in 
wages,  or  41  per  cent  of  the  wages  received  by  railroad  en¬ 
gineers  that  year.  The  population  of  the  region  served  by  these 
railroads  included  more  than  40  per  cent,  of  the  total  popula¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States.  Approximately  30,000  engineers  par¬ 
ticipated  in  the  concerted  movement  to  better  their  working 
conditions  and  to  increase  wages.  From  these  figures  the  im¬ 
portance  of  the  labor  dispute  becomes  at  once  apparent.  The 
interests  involved  were  of  tremendous  magnitude. 

The  representatives  of  the  engineers  met  those  of  the  rail¬ 
roads  in  conference  three  times  during  the  month  of  March. 
The  railroads  refused  to  grant  the  demands  of  the  men  in 
whole  or  in  part,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  financially 
unable  to  pay  the  wage  increases.  The  engineers  then  took  a 
strike  vote  by  which  93  per  cent  of  the  men  manifested  their 
readiness  to  strike.  At  this  crisis  Judge  Martin  A.  Knapp, 
head  of  the  United  States  Commerce  Court,  and  Charles  P. 
Neill,  United  States  Commissioner  of  Labor,  intervened  and 
urged  that  methods  of  peaceful  mediation  be  tried  before  re¬ 
sorting  to  a  strike.  Their  efforts  resulted  in  securing  the  con¬ 
sent  of  Warren  S.  Stone,  chief  of  the  engineers,  and  J.  C. 
Stuart,  chairman  of  the  Conference  Committee  of  Managers, 
to  consult  with  them.  Proposals  of  mediation  were  rejected, 
but  eventually  both  parties  agreed  to  submit  their  differences  to 
a  board  of  arbitration. 

To  serve  on  this  board  the  engineers  selected  P.  H.  Mor¬ 
rissey,  former  Grand  Master  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Railroad 
Trainmen;  the  railroads  selected  Daniel  Willard,  president  of 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad.  The  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  appointed  the  five  other  members  of  the  board. 
They  were  Oscar  S.  Straus  of  New  York;  Charles  R.  Van  Hise, 
president  of  Wisconsin  University;  Albert  Shaw,  editor  of  the 
Review  of  Reviews;  Frederick  N.  Judson  of  St.  Louis;  and 
Otto  M.  Eidlitz,  former  president  of  the  Building  Trades  Asso¬ 
ciation  of  New  York. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


151 


After  finishing  these  terms  of  the  award  the  board  extended 
its  own  jurisdiction  and  took  up  what  it  pleased  to  term  the 
“broader  aspects”  of  the  problem.  It  pointed  out  a  new  phase 
of  development,  that  is,  the  concerted  action  of  the  engineers 
upon  the  fifty-two  roads  of  the  Eastern  Division,  and  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  there  had  never  been  a  strike  on  all 
the  roads  in  any  district;  colossal  interests  were  involved;  the 
convenience  and  interests  of  the  public  are  of  greater  im¬ 
portance  than  any  other  issue ;  the  commission  emphasized  the 
wealth  and  size  of  the  district  concerned,  and  the  number  of 
people  living  therein ;  all  these  interests  would  be  affected  by 
a  strike  among  the  railroad  engineers  to  secure  fairer  wages. 

Evidently  the  very  elements,  strength  and  solidarity,  that 
made  concerted  action  successful,  are  deemed  just  cause  for 
restricting  freedom  of  action  among  the  engineers.  It  is  only 
natural  that  the  workingmen  should  recognize  in  the  suggestion 
to  eliminate  the  strike,  a  method  of  exploiting  them. 

Since  the  interests  of  the  public  are  paramount  to  all  other 
factors  concerned  in  a  railroad  strike,  it  is  therefore  imperative, 
the  report  affirms,  that  some  other  way  than  the  strike  be  found 
to  settle  differences  between  the  railroads  and  their  employes. 
The  merits  of  the  Erdman  Act  and  the  Canadian  Industrial 
Disputes  Act  were  considered,  but  declared  inadequate.  There 
is  a  better  way,  the  commission  decided.  Railroads  are  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  and  various  state 
commissions,  but  their  employes  are  not.  Since  the  board  of 
arbitration  considered  this  a  disparity  of  status,  it  recommended 
the  creation  of  federal  and  state  wage  commissions  which 
shall  exercise  functions  regarding  workers  engaged  in  work 
upon  public  utilities,  analogous  to  those  exercised  with  regard 
to  capital  by  the  public  service  commissions  already  in  ex¬ 
istence.  The  award  concludes  with  this  paragraph : 

It  is  well  understood  by  the  board  that  the  problem  for  which  the 
above  plan  is  a  suggested  solution  is  a  complex  and  difficult  one.  The 
suggestion,  however,  grows  out  of  a  profound  conviction  that  the  food 
and  clothing  of  our  people,  the  industries  and  the  general  welfare  of 
the  nation  can  not  be  permitted  to  depend  upon  the  policies  and  the 
dictates  of  any  particular  group  of  men,  whether  employers  or  em¬ 
ployes,  nor  upon  the  determination  of  a  group  of  employers  and  em¬ 
ployes  combined.  The  public  utilities  of  the  nation  are  of  such  funda¬ 
mental  importance  to  the  whole  people  that  their  operation  must  not  be 
interrupted,  and  means  must  be  worked  out  which  will  guarantee  this 
result. 

The  report  was  made  by  the  five  members  of  the  board  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  government  officials  and  accepted  by  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  railroads. 


152 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Mr.  Morrissey,  the  representative  of  the  engineers,  dissented 
from  the  award  of  the  board.  He  wrote  an  individual  report 
in  which  he  contends  that  the  award  of  the  board  will  have 
the  effect  of  retarding  the  progress  of  arbitration  in  the  settle¬ 
ment  of  industrial  disputes  in  connection  with  railroads.  The 
award,  he  asserted,  does  not  settle  the  important  principles 
raised  by  the  engineers  and  can  be  only  temporary  because  it 
is  based  upon  statistics  that  not  only  were  unreliable  for  the 
purposes  for  which  the  board  used  them,  but  also  were  wrongly 
applied.  He  dissents  from  the  recommendation  that  wage  com¬ 
missions  with  power  of  compulsory  arbitration  be  established, 
although  such  commissions  might  fittingly  serve  other  functions. 
In  view  of  that  award  just  made  Mr.  Morrissey  suggested  that 
hereafter  all  arbitration  boards  shall  be  so  constituted  that  no 
one  group  to  the  arbitration  should  have  a  majority  of  the 
board  of  arbitrators. 

Mr.  Morrissey’s  dissenting  report  concludes  with  this  signi¬ 
ficant  statement : 

I  wish  to  emphasize  my  dissent  from  the  recommendation  of  the 

board  which  in  its  effect  virtually  means  compulsory  arbitration  for  the 

railroads  and  their  employes.  Regardless  of  any  probable  constitutional 
prohibitions  which  might  operate  against  it  being  adopted,  it  is  wholly 
impracticable.  The  progress  toward  the  settlement  of.  disputes  between 
the  railways  and  their  employes  without  recourse  to  industrial  warfare 
has  been  marked.  There  is  nothing  under  present  conditions  to  pre¬ 
vent  its  continuance.  It  will  never  be  perfect,  but  even  so  it  will  be 

immeasurably  better  than  it  wouid  be  under  conditions  such  as  the  board 
propose.  The  peace  that  would  satisfy  such  an  ideal  condition  as  that 
had  in  mind  by  those  making  the  recommendation,  would  be  too  dearly 
bought  even  if  it  could  be  attained.  To  insure  the  permanent  industrial 
peace  so  much  desired  will  require  a  broader  statesmanship  than  that 
which  would  shackle  the  rights  of  a  large  group  of  our  citizens. 

To  sum  up;  the  principal  labor  conceptions  enunciated  by 
the  board  of  arbitration  for  the  eastern  railroads  and  their 
engineers  are:  (i)  There  are  three  parties  interested  in  every 
industrial  dispute,  the  employers,  the  employes,  and  the  public; 
the  interests  of  the  last  are  paramount :  (2)  A  fair  wage  should 
be  paid  to  employes.  (3)  Capital  and  labor  should  be  subject  to 
the  same  regulations;  hence  federal  and  state  wage  commis¬ 
sions  with  compulsory  powers  should  be  established.  Organized 
labor  takes  issue  with  the  first  and  the  second  principle  stated. 

The  “public”  has  traveled  a  long  journey  since  the  old  days 
when  the  railroad  kings  lightly  ignored  their  claims  to  con¬ 
sideration  with  “the  public  be  damned”  or  “there’s  nothing  to 
arbitrate”  with  labor.  It  would  appear  that  when  this  long  suf¬ 
fering,  just  and  impartial  public  gains  the  controlling  voice  in 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


153 


the  arbitration  tribunals,  it  is  quite  willing  to  consign  other 
people  to  the  condition  previously  allotted  the  public.  It  is 
a  wise  policy  that  yields  absolutely  to  no  agents’  control  over 
liberty  and  justice.  The  great  abstract  something  called  the  pub¬ 
lic  is  made  up  of  individuals  of  fallible  judgment,  human  im¬ 
pulses,  with  motives  that  may  be  selfish  and  acquisitive. 

The  five  men  who  represented  the  public  on  this  arbitration 
board  regard  labor  (human)  as  a  material  essential  to  the  satis¬ 
faction  of  public  needs  and  desires,  and  of  the  same  nature  with 
capital,  to  be  regulated  and  restricted  in  the  same  way  and 
degree.  In  order  that  the  public  may  be  fed,  clothed,  served 
without  intermission  and  irfconvenience,  labor  (again  we  say 
human)  shall  lay  aside  any  claim  to  what  it  may  consider  its 
rights  and  peacefully  accept  what  others  may  deem  good  for 
it. 

If  this  award,  with  its  suggestions  purporting  to  be  in  the 
interests  of  the  general  welfare,  is  an  illustration  of  what  the 
working  people  are  to  expect  from  compulsory  arbitration,  it  is 
little  to  be  wondered  at  that  workingmen  look  upon  the  pro¬ 
posal  with  not  only  distrust  but  with  aversion  and  antagonism. 

An  account  by  the  Wall  Street  financial  expert  writer  sug¬ 
gests  that  perhaps  the  motives  back  of  compulsory  arbitration 
are  not  altogether  altruistic  and  humanitarian.  It  is  in  part: 

The  report  of  the  arbitration  commission  is  regarded  by  railroads  as 
a  distinct  victory.  The  increase  in  wages  is  not  a  high  price  to  pay 
for  the  weapon  of  defense  fashioned  and  placed  in  their  hands — the 
proposition  to  create  Federal  and  State  wage  commissions  with  arbitrary 
powers  to  make  and  enforce  terms  of  settlement  of  disputes. 

Organized  labor  has  seen  and  felt  this  danger  and  realizes  that  the 
report  of  the  arbitration  commission  is  an  entering  wedge  to  discussion 
and  action  on  an  issue  it  would  like  to  delay  or  dodge.  The  issue  is 
not  a  new  one,  but  this  is  the  first  time  the  railroads  have  been  able  to 
get  it  before  the  law-making  powers  as  an  authorized  expression  of  a 
body  claiming  to  represent  the  public.  The  five  outside  commissioners 
felt  a  keen  sense  of  the  duty  they  owed  the  public  in  this  investigation 
by  refusing  compensation  for  their  five  months  of  service  on  the  board 
though  they  might  as  well  have  pocketed  $20,000  apiece.  This  action 
is  added  dignity  and  impressiveness  to  the  finding. 

The  report  of  the  wage  commission  is  at  once  a  club  and  a  wedge, 
and  organized  labor  identified  with  the  utilities  systems  will  be  slow  to 
give  employers  a  chance  to  invoke  popular  sympathy  and  cooperation  for 
suppression  of  violent  methods. 

This  suspicion  is  further  increased  by  the  reflection  that 
the  great  mass  of  individuals  which  make  up  all  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  has  been  willing  to  put  up  with  coal  strikes,  street-car  strikes, 
railroad  strikes,  strikes  affecting  all  manner  of  industries  upon 
which  it  depends  for  supplies,  and  has  not  passed  compulsory 
arbitration  laws  to  protect  its  own  interests. 


154 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


It  is  argued  that  the  establishment  of  federal  and  state 
commissions  for  the  regulation  of  wages  will  place  “capital  and 
labor  on  equality,”  which  does  not  exist  under  the  present  in¬ 
terstate  commerce  provisions.  On  the  surface,  that  may  seem 
a  fair  conclusion ;  but  in  reality  it  leaves  out  of  consideration 
the  fundamental  and  inherent  difference  between  labor  and 
capital,  the  relative  influence  of  each,  and  how  deep-seated  and 
dominant  are  the  self-interest  motives. 

It  is  now  accepted  as  fact  that  the  bargaining  power  of  the 
individual  employe  is  far  inferior  to  that  of  the  employer. 

Only  by  union  of  the  individuals  has  the  weaker  element 
been  made  strong  enough  to  deal  with  the  employer  on  an  equal 
footing. 

Back  of  the  worker’s  collective  demands  and  propositions 
has  always  been  the  only  argument  of  any  persuasive  influence 
upon  employers — power. 

This  reserve  power  is  the  right  to  strike. 

In  the  business  world  of  today  the  conflict  of  interests  is 
so  intense,  the  struggle  for  profits  so  keen  and  so  vital  that 
any  factor  not  able  to  defend  itself  by  power  or  influence  that 
can  enforce  compliance,  need  not  anticipate  a  pleasant  or  a 
prolonged  existence.  If  men  of  labor  surrender  their  right 
to  strike,  they  will  be  in  the  business  world  as  guileless  sheep 
among  the  grey  wolves.  Such  an  action  would  place  them  in 
the  same  category  with  sheep,  not  only  from  the  defensive  as¬ 
pect,  but  also  from  the  intellectual.  Men  are  in  business  for 
profits.  Hence,  it  is  perfectly  natural  that  employers  should 
ever  seek  to  entrench  their  own  interests,  and  grudgingly  di¬ 
minish  their  share. 

Of  late  years  the  merging  of  employers’  interests,  the  trust 
organization,  has  made  it  necessary  for  the  government  to  in¬ 
tervene  for  the  protection  of  the  public  as  consumers.  It  would 
be  a  far  different  matter  for  the  government  to  intervene  again, 
but  in  the  interest  of  the  employers.  That  such  would  be  the 
result  of  this  proposal  to  establish  compulsory  arbitration  is 
acknowledged— -even  the  Wall  Street  interpreter  admits  that  the 
plan  is  a  club  and  a  wedge; 

Once  disarm  the  workers  of  their  right  to  self-ownership, 
exploitation  and  some  form  of  slavery  will  inevitably  follow. 
Those  who  favor  the  plan  claim  that  the  awards  of  the  arbitra¬ 
tion  tribunals  will  guarantee  justice.  This  view  is  hopeful 
but  not  warranted. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


155 


Even  the  most  ardent  advocates  of  international  arbitration 
accept  certain  matters  as  not  justifiable.  Any  infringement 
upon  those  fundamental  rights  will  be  resisted  by  force  by  any 
nation.  However  much  we  may  believe  in  the  brotherhood  of 
man  and  the  compelling  loftier  influences  of  love,  yet  we  do 
not  abandon  our  police  system.  We  know  that  men  have  nobler 
impulses  and  better  selves ;  we  know  that  these  are  increasingly 
asserting  themselves ;  but  we  also  know  that  removal  of 
restraints  upon  the  less  worthy  manifestations  will  not  neces¬ 
sarily  lead  to  the  development  of  the  higher.  The  strong 
arm  of  society  lays  hold  upon  those  who  offend.  Men  who 
when  robbed  of  their  cloaks,  meekly  yielded  up  their  coats  also, 
would  be  compelled  to  seek  a  tropical  clime.  Men  who  can 
not  or  will  not  reinforce  their  right  to  individual  considera¬ 
tion  or  justice  contribute  to  the  development  of  non-social 
traits  in  others.  Labor  would  not  be  justified  in  anticipating 
justice  as  a  result  of  yielding  up  its  power  of  self-protection. 

But  the  advocates  of  compulsory  arbitration  claim,  labor 
would  be  yielding  no  more  by  submitting  to  the  awards  of  a 
wage  commission  than  the  railroads  yield  in  submitting  to  the 
awards  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  There  is  a 
seeming  analogy  which  will  not  bear  close  examination.  In 
accepting  regulation  determined  by  the  Commission,  the  rail¬ 
roads  reduce  the  dividends  paid  upon  a  capitalization  that  bears 
no  relation  to  actual  investments,  but  has  been  created  by 
many  curious  and  questionable  devices.  Such  regulations  com¬ 
pel  the  furnishing  to  the  public  of  better  and  more  impar¬ 
tial  service  and  rates.  To  be  sure,  the  “right”  of  the  com¬ 
pany  “to  manage  its  own  business”  is  restricted,  excessive 
charges  and  large  dividends  are  somewhat  limited ;  but  those 
are  matters  that  never  existed  as  just  rights.  Nor  were  they 
more  than  external  possessions  of  the  company,  for  the  owners, 
the  managers,  the  officers,  still  retain  their  own  physical  per¬ 
sonal  liberty  and  freedom  unimpaired.  Should  these  wage 
commissions  be  established  with  compulsory  power  to  fix  wages 
and  working  conditions,  to  make  their  awards  effective,  penal¬ 
ties  for  violation  must  follow.  When  wages,  hours  or  working 
conditions  are  decided,  the  workingmen  must  give  of  their  own 
physical  power  for  the  stipulated  allotment.  If  their  sense  of 
injustice  be  so  aroused  that  they  strike,  they  will  be  fined  or 
sent  to  jail,  or  both.  Freedom  of  choice,  personal  liberty,  is 
gone.  These  awards  are  dealing  with  matters  inseparable  from 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


1 5*5 

the  living  pulsating  human  being.  Compulsory  arbitration  is 
but  another  form  of  industrial  bondage. 

This  supposes  decisions  in  favor  of  the  employers  and  not 
impartial  awards,  the  advocates  object.  But  is  any  other  hypo¬ 
thesis  probable?  These  compulsory  arbitration  commissions 
would  be  composed  of  representatives  of  the  three  parties — em¬ 
ployers,  employes,  and  the  public.  The  employers  are  men  of 
influence  in  the  political,  industrial,  and  financial  circles.  Their 
connections,  their  inside  knowledge,  give  their  opinions  and 
demands  a  potential  force  that  may  be  only  a  subtle,  psycholog¬ 
ical  influence  or  of  a  less  refined  nature.  There  is  a  prestige 
accorded  to  men  who  have  places  of  control  that  secures  for 
them  consideration. 

Then,  too,  with  compulsory  arbitration,  the  fact  that  all 
the  great  instrumentalities  and  channels  of  communication  are 
under  the  control  of  the  employing  interests,  would  still  further 
emphasize  the  disparity  in  influence  between  the  employers  and 
the  workers.  The  employers  own  the  great  public  press  and 
control  their  policy;  control  the  telegraphs,  the  telephones,  and 
the  cables;  control  the  gathering  of  information,  its  prepara¬ 
tion,  and  editing,  and  thereby  control  the  statement  of  facts, 
and  the  presentation  of  conditions  and  causes  actuating  motives. 
By  this  power  the  press  determines  what  the  public  shall  know 
and  what  conclusions  it  shall  deduce.  With  this  condition  of 
affairs,  how  are  the  toilers  to  get  their  side  of  the  story  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  public ;  how  are  they  to  tell  the  world  the  in¬ 
justice  and  grievances  that  should  be  changed,  if  humanity  is 
to  be  accorded  an  equal  chance? 

Where,  indeed,  is  protection  accorded  to  workers  equal  to 
that  accorded  employers? 

Labor  shorn  of  its  power  would  be  a  great  inert,  spineless 
mass,  as  likely  to  inspire  respect  and  consideration  as  a  jelly¬ 
fish. 

The  third  party,  the  public,  is  interested  from  the  consumers’ 
standpoint,  and  hence,  regarded  as  an  impartial  judge  of  the 
employers’  and  employes’  claims.  This  third  party,  the  con¬ 
sumers,  is  not  always  the  absolute  and  unerring  arbitrator  de¬ 
picted.  It  is  chiefly  interested  in  having  its  wants,  satisfied,  its 
conveniences  served ;  although  it  may  intellectually  recognize 
wrongs  and  grant  that  they  should  be  corrected,  practical  and 
financial  influences  will  not  infrequently  overrule  such  con¬ 
victions  in  favor  of  the  apparently  easiest  solution  of  the  dif- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


157 


ficulty  even  if  the  results  are  but  temporary,  which  means  vic¬ 
tory  for  the  stronger.  Such  was  the  experience  of  the  laundry 
workers  of  New  York.  Even  though  harrowing  and  revolt¬ 
ing  details  connected  with  the  cleansing  of  the  city’s  dirty 
linen  were  vividly  and  specifically  revealed  to  the  public,  the 
conscience  of  this  impartial  arbitrator  remained  dormant.  The 
public  failed  to  rise  to  expected  heights. 

After  all,  is  the  public  disinterested?  Do  we  not  rather 
find  it  composed  of  different  groups,  some  whose  interests  are 
similar  to  those  of  the  employers  involved,  and  who  hence 
naturally  sympathize  with  them  and  their  position?  There  are 
many  whose  financial  welfane  is  identical  with  that  of  the  em¬ 
ployer,  who  are  dependent  upon  his  prosperity.  There  are  many 
whose  industrial  experience  as  workmen  would  inevitably  pre¬ 
dispose  them  to  approve  the  actions  and  demands  of  the  em¬ 
ployes  upon  any  question.  There  are  many  selfish  and  indif¬ 
ferent  to  the  moral  and  ethical  values  of  any  issue  that  conflicts 
with  their  own  comfort.  There  are  some  few  with  broader 
sympathies  and  keener  and  deeper  understanding  of  human 
nature,  who  try  to  maintain  the  dispassionate  attitude  of  jus¬ 
tice  toward  both,  but  upon  some  critical  and  vital  issue  can 
they  completely  overcome  the  formative,  determining  influences 
of  environment,  instruction,  and  the  indefinable  psychic  in¬ 
fluences  of  their  own  kind?  It  is  a  serious  and  dangerous  mat¬ 
ter  to  entrust  the  determination  of  issues  which  concern  the 
life,  the  happiness,  the  welfare,  and  freedom  of  the  workers 
into  the  hands  of  other  men  who  do  not  and  can  not  know 
the  toilers’  world  in  which  they  live,  move,  and  have  their 
being. 

Government  regulation  has  two  classes  of  advocates ;  one 
hopes  thereby  to  insure  the  welfare  of  the  people,  the  other 
hopes  to  insure  his  own  continuity  of  control.  It  is  often  hard 
for  the  average  man  to  discern  the  first  from  the  second,  and 
frequently  seekers  for  the  commonweal  are  deluded  into  follow¬ 
ing  false  leaders  and  trying  a  remedy  that  is  worse  than  the 
disease. 

Government  regulation  is  a  remedy  frequently  suggested  for 
all  manner  of  political,  social  and  economic  evils,  resulting  from 
modern  industrial  chicanery  and  imcompetency.  It  is  not  in 
itself  a  universal  good  or  evil ;  its  application,  or  otherwise, 
must  be  determined  by  the  individual  character  of  the  principles 
involved  in  the  situation. 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


158 


If  the  compulsory  element  is  introduced  and  government  ma¬ 
chinery  is  invoked  in  determining  industrial  disputes,  then  it 
devolves  upon  the  government  to  enforce  any  and  all  awards 
that  thus  become  the  law  of  the  land,  in  order  to  protect  the 
government  from  contempt.  Should  the  employer  object  to  the 
decision  and  award  he  may  go  out  of  business,  which  may  in¬ 
volve  financial  loss,  or  he  may  enter  upon  another  business 
career;  or  if  he  violates  the  terms  of  the  award,  he  can  be 
held  financially  liable.  But  should  the  employe  feel  that  an 
award  and  decision  have  been  ever  so  grossly  unfair  and  un¬ 
just,  what  recourse  is  open  to  them?  To  accept  the  award  and 
sullenly  work  as  slaves  under  conditions  which  are  not  only 
onerous  to  them,  but  enforced  by  all  the  powers  of  govern¬ 
ment?  Or  rebel  and  go  on  “illegal  strike”?  In  the  latter  event, 
they  may  be  all  arrested,  tried,  and  sentenced  to  fines  or  im¬ 
prisonment.  But  supposing  fines,  how  collect  them?  In  lieu 
of  means  or  willingness  to  pay  fines,  several  thousands  may  be 
sent  to  jail.  But  how,  all  at  one  time,  or  in  relay  squads? 

Decisions  can  not  be  enforced  in  the  face  of  the  united  and 
determined  resistance  of  the  people  to  tyranny,  and  in  defense 
of  freedom.  You  can  not  stop  strikes  by  law;  you  can  not, 
at  least  in  the  United  States  in  this  year  of  grace,  enforce  in¬ 
voluntary  servitude  upon  unconvicted  American  citizen  work¬ 
men.  Even  if  strikes  could  be  made  illegal,  there  would  be  no 
guarantee  of  industrial  peace.  A  strike  is  not  an  aggressive  act, 
it  is  not  an  affirmative  act,  it  is  negative.  It  is  expressed  by 
non-resistance.  It  is  the  state  of  doing  nothing.  It  is  ex¬ 
pressed  by  men  folding  their  arms  or  holding  them  to  their 
sides,  a  refusal  to  expend  their  physical  and  mental  powers 
in  service  for  another.  And  so  long  as  freedom  in  its  faintest 
concept  shall  obtain  in  our  country,  so  long  as  workmen,  citi¬ 
zens  of  the  United  States,  may  claim  the  rights  and  the 
guarantees  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
several  States,  they  can  not  by  law  be  forced  to  expend  their 
labor  power,  which  is  part  of  their  very  life  and  being,  in  the 
service  of  another. 

The  enactment  of  compulsory  arbitration  is  no  remedy  for 
strikes.  This  fact  is  proven  wherever  the  effort  has  been  made. 
All  agree  that  strikes  should  be  avoided  wherever  possible,  and 
every  honorable  effort  made  to  avert  them.  But  the  very  best 
evidence  is  afforded  by  the  board  of  arbitration’s  award  in  the 
case  under  consideration,  that  strikes  are  more  generally 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


UP 


avoided  and  brought  to  a  minimum  in  number  when  the  workers 
are  organized,  capable  of  ascertaining  and  maintaining  their 
rights,  with  the  power  and  the  right  to  strike,  and  yet  sub¬ 
mitting  their  cause  as  they  submitted  this  case  to  an  arbitration 
board,  the  majority  of  whom  were  predisposed  against  them. 

Even  though  the  award  in  regard  to  wages,  hours,  and  con¬ 
ditions  of  employment  is  not  entirely  satisfactory,  it  has  been 
accepted,  and  will  be  complied  with  by  the  men  and  the  organi¬ 
zation  affected.  But,  as  Mr.  Morrissey,  a  member  of  the  board, 
points  out,  the  terms  are  unjust,  inapplicable  and  can  not  in  any 
way  be  regarded  as  at  all  permanent.  But  be  that  as  it  may, 
the  board  of  arbitrators  in  this  case  could  well  have  afforded 
to  have  allowed  its  award  upon  the  conditions  of  labor  to  stand, 
without  traveling  far  beyond  the  purpose  for  which  it  was 
called  into  existence  and  entering  into  a  realm  dangerously 
trespassing  upon  the  rights  of  man  and  guaranteed  American 
citizenship. 

Would  a  compulsory  arbitration  law,  with  its  provisions  en¬ 
forced  by  the  government,  prove  a  deterrent  to  strikes?  We 
think  not.  But  even  if  it  did,  such  a  law  would  only  repress 
the  feeling  of  anger  and  resentment  at  unjust  decisions  until  the 
repressed  current  would  burst  through  all  control,  sweeping 
everything  before  it  in  the  revulsion  of  feeling.  The  pages 
of  the  French  Revolution  afford  example  after  example  of 
cumulative  revulsion  resulting  from  tyranny  and  repression.  As 
the  OUTLOOK  truly  observes :  “Compulsory  arbitration 
would  promote  rather  than  prevent  labor  wars,  unless  it  can 
be  so  framed  as  to  secure  the  consent  of  the  trainmen,” — which 
is  to  say  must  be  voluntary  instead  of  compulsory. 

As  already  stated,  strikes  should  be  avoided  whenever  pos¬ 
sible,  but  is  a  strike  essentially  an  evil?  As  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott 
said,  in  discussing  international  arbitration  treaties : 

What  we  should  be  especially  interested  in,  is  not  that  this  be  a  move¬ 
ment  for  peace,  but  that  it  be  a  movement  for  justice.  Peace  has  its 
tragedies,  no  less  than  war. 

What  the  right  of  resistance  to  injustice  is  in  the  political 
world,  the  right  to  strike,  to  cease  work,  is  in  the  industrial. 

A  reserve  power  held  in  abeyance  to  be  used  only  in  the 
interests  of  justice  when  all  other  means  have  failed. 

The  right  to  strike  must  be  retained  if  the  working  men 
would  retain  the  position  of  free  men. 

A  strike,  like  any  other  power,  is  not  to  be  used  flippantly. 


i6o 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


It  has  been  one  of  the  most  effective  means  with  which  the 
workers  have  fought  their  way  to  higher  elevations.  Workers 
have  ever  been  the  oppressed  class,  but  slowly,  steadily,  they 
have  forged  their  way  upward  from  slavery  to  serfdom,  from 
serfdom  to  freedom.  Then  as  freemen  they  have  fought  to 
maintain  the  right  to  strike,  to  dispose  of  their  working  power 
as  they  deem  best,  to  associate  themselves  together  to  promote 
their  general  welfare.  Now  come  vested  interests  seeking  again 
to  reduce  the  workers  to  a  condition  in  which  they  may  be 
more  readily  exploited.  The  danger  threatens  in  the  form  of 
governmental  intervention  and  regulation  of  industrial  relations 
through  judicial  machinery,  and  the  jails.  In  the  interests  of 
industrial  continuity,  the  workers  may  not  cease  work  when 
they  please. 

The  toilers  are  to  lose  their  defensive  weapon.  The  Govern¬ 
ment  directs  that  they  shall  unfold  their  arms,  and  forces  them 
to  work.  The  workers  are  to  return  to  the  condition  which  pre¬ 
vailed  under  the  old  medieval  conspiracy  laws,  when  men  were 
jailed,  branded,  or  hanged  on  the  charge  that  they  had  “robbed 
their  employers  of  their  labor.”  Strikes  are  to  be  made  illegal. 

Must  it  come  that  to  regain  freedom  from  slavery  the  work¬ 
ers  must  fight  the  Government?  That  for  the  purpose  of  pre¬ 
venting  strikes  and  maintaining  industry  undisturbed,  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration  must  set  unconstitutional  limitations  on  the 
freedom  of  the  great  masses  of  the  people?  However  much  we 
may  regret  the  economic  loss,  suffering  and  inconvenience  at¬ 
tending  strikes,  there  is  involved  that  which  is  of  greater 
moment.  What  should  be  the  object  of  our  endeavors  is  not  a 
cure,  not  a  palliative,  not  merely  something  that  will  stop  indus¬ 
trial  warfare  and  economic  loss,  but  to  understand  and  remedy 
the  underlying  conditions  that  result  in  injustice  so  that  our 
changes  may  be  really  constructive.  Industrial  warfare  will 
cease  when  the  grievances  of,  the  wrongs  and  injustice  to  the 
toilers  no  longer  exist.  Then  the  worker  shall  still  remain  a 
free  man,  retain  his  weapon  of  defense,  cumbersome  though  it 
be. 

“The  crucial  boundary  line,  the  border  between  industry  and 
democracy,”  does  indeed  need  more  light,  more  fair,  open  in¬ 
vestigation  and  discussion,  not  the  compulsory  awards  and  de¬ 
cisions  that  would  result  from  substituting  Government  regula¬ 
tion,  control  and  enforcement  for  voluntary  action  concerning 
personal  relations  on  the  part  of  free  citizens. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


161 


How  the  principle  operates  in  practice,  gives  a  line  on  its 
actual  value,  and  reveals  whether  the  results  promised  are  se¬ 
cured, — that  is:  Are  there  no  strikes?  Is  industrial  progress 
uninterrupted?  Has  the  industrial  problem  been  solved  and  are 
the  interests  of  labor  and  capital  co-ordinated  so  that  an  era  of 
good  feeling  and  industrial  peace  is  maintained?  Have  social 
justice  and  democracy  been  realized?  Can  law  prevent  strikes? 
Can  compulsory  arbitration  affect  industrial  changes  that  will 
result  in  setting  up  machinery  that  will  insure  the  employes  a 
fair  share  of  the  product  of  their  toil?  The  most  extensive 
laboratories  for  experimentation  in  these  questions  are  in 
Australasia,  Canada  and  British  South  Africa. 

For  the  first  twelve  years  after  the  adoption  of  compulsory 
arbitration  in  Australasia  its  advocates  had  many  reasons  for 
satisfaction.  The  grievances  and  the  wrongs  of  the  men  were 
so  obvious  that  no  court  could  refuse  them  awards,  so  the 
workers  were  satisfied.  As  the  adoption  of  the  law  coincided 
with  the  period  of  prosperity  the  employers  did  not  seriously 
object  to  increased  wages. 

The  high  tariff  wall  gave  the  employers  additional  protec¬ 
tion.  Their  profits  were  further  insured  by  the  tendency 
towards  standardization  of  production  costs.  Australia  and 
New  Zealand  were  usually  spoken  of  as  a  working  man’s  para¬ 
dise,  the  land  of  no  strikes. 

Beginning  with  1901  dissatisfaction  developed  among  the 
workers.  This  culminated  in  a  long  series  of  strikes  beginning 
in  1906,  when  a  strike  occurred  on  the  tramways  in  Auckland ; 
in  1907  there  wras  a  large  strike  among  the  slaughtermen ;  in 
1908  the  coal  miners  went  out.  The  same  year,  the  motormen 
and  conductors  in  Auckland  struck  and  the  bakers  of  Welling¬ 
ton.  The  labor  report  for  New  Zealand  for  1908  showed 
twenty-three  strikes  affecting  2,389  men,  and  since  then  strikes 
have  increased  in  number  and  in  scope. 

In  February,  1907,  the  slaughterers  demanded  an  increase 
in  wages.  The  packers  refused  to  grant  this  and  referred  the 
question  to  the  arbitration  court.  Knowing  that  the  court  would 
consume  the  most  valuable  time  of  the  season  in  reaching  a 
decision,  which  in  the  end  would  probably  be  unfavorable,  the 
men  struck  illegally.  The  four  principal  centers  of  the  packing 
business  were  tied  up.  This  desperate  situation  forced  the  em¬ 
ployers  to  grant  the  increase.  The  court  was  in  a  dilemma  for 
“the  law  must  be  upheld.”  They  arrested  the  slaughterers  and 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


162 

fined  them  $25  each.  It  was  a  long  and  tedious  process.  Men 
were  numerous  and  hard  to  identify.  Those  brought  in  were 
searched  but  the  $25  were  not  forthcoming.  The  wheels  of 
justice  ground  slowly;  when  summer  was  ended,  many  unfined 
slaughterers  had  vanished.  The  law  had  been  defied  with  im¬ 
punity;  it  was  important  to  prevent  the  strike  and  could  not 
enforce  the  penalty  for  striking. 

The  necessity  of  enforcing  the  law  prompted  the  Govern¬ 
ment  to  increase  the  penalties  for  its  violation.  In  the  future 
any  one  who  struck  while  a  case  was  pending  might  be  fined 
and  in  lieu  of  the  fine  his  goods  confiscated  or  the  man  himself 
imprisoned.  Any  labor  union  ordering  a  strike  or-  permitting 
its  members  to  strike,  must  pay  a  fine.  Then,  lest  the  unions 
evade  the  law  by  withdrawing  their  registration,  the  fine  for 
striking  was  extended  to  all  trades  supplying  a  utility  or  neces¬ 
sity,  whether  the  trades  were  organized  or  not. 

Strikes  among  the  slaughtermen  have  been  especially  numer¬ 
ous  in  New  Zealand,  and  for  that  reason  are  counted  separately 
in  the  labor  reports.  In  the  year  1908-1909,  penalties  were  in¬ 
flicted  on  workmen  in  266  cases ;  the  fines  aggregating  $6,650,  of 
which,  at  the  end  of  six  months,  58U2  percent  remained  unpaid. 

In  1908,  after  having  presented  their  grievances  again  and 
again,  and  receiving  no  answer  except  the  dismissal  of  the  men 
making  the  complaints,  the  miners  struck.  Preparatory  to  action 
they  divided  their  union  funds  among  the  individual  members 
to  prevent  their  being  levied  on  for  fines.  The  employers  in¬ 
voked  the  new  law.  The  household  goods  of  the  men  were 
seized ;  cook  stoves,  sewing  machines  and  furniture,  including 
articles  owned  by  wives  before  marriage.  The  goods  must  be 
sold  at  public  auction, — but  buyers  there  were  none.  Finally  a 
smiling  man  offered  $1.25  for  the  whole  lot — and  got  it.  Be¬ 
fore  night  the  miners’  goods  had  been  returned  to  the  miners’ 
homes.  Thus  it  was  again  plain  the  law  could  be  defied  with 
impunity.  Enforcement  of  law  depends  on  popular  sentiment 
or  concept  of  justice. 

Mere  enactment  of  legislation  is  no  remedy.  Compulsion 
can  not  be  extended  beyond  certain  limits. 

In  West  Australia  there  were  many  “unlawful”  strikes  and 
lockouts,  but  as  a  rule  no  attempt  to  enforce  the  prohibiting 
clause.  The  act  broke  down  completely  in  1907  in  the  saw¬ 
milling  industry.  Three  thousand  men  were  affected,  but  there 
was  no  attempt  to  enforce  the  unpalatable  award. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


163 

In  a  mass  meeting  of  the  employes  of  Broken  Hill  Mine  of 
New  South  Wales  on  October  18,  1908,  the  chairman  declared: 
“The  idea  of  the  new  political  union  is  to  get  an  agreement  and 
register.  The  bona  fide  unions  in  the  Broken  Hill  Mine  would 
have  no  voice  in  it.  These  irresponsibles  would  have  the  agree¬ 
ment  made  a  general  law.  A  strike  is  our  only  remedy.  Wade’s 
act  says  we  shall  go  to  jail  if  we  strike,  but  no  government  on 
earth  would  put  the  6,000  men  on  the  line  of  load  in  the  Bar¬ 
riers  in  jail.” 

This  chairman  definitely  voices  the  conviction  that  has  been 
growing  among  the  men,  that  the  compulsory  law  was  a  political 
move  and  that  the  labor  men  had  never  controlled  the  political 
situation.  As  a  result,  the  workingmen  had  come  to  feel  that 
they  had  no  part  in  the  system  and  that  whatever  had  been 
given  them  was  only  given  to  hold  them  in  line  quiescent  that 
industry  might  be  uninterrupted,  but  that  freedom  of  action,  the 
birthright  of  all  free  men,  was  yet  far  from  their  reach,  tied  up 
by  absolute  governmental  control. 

The  exploited  can  not  cherish  good  will  towards  those  who 
use  governmental  control  for  their  hurt.  Compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion  did  not  emanate  from  the  workers,  but  from  the  rural 
public  which  was  the  controlling  political  force.  They  had  al¬ 
ways  assumed  a  savage  attitude  towards  strikers  and  made  fre¬ 
quent  use  of  the  militia  against  them.  The  militia  used  in 
strikes  was  told  to  aim  to  “lay  the  strikers  out.”  The  police  of 
Australia  have  used  against  strikers  a  most  brutal  method, 
found  no  place  else,  known  as  “frog  marching.”  The  arrested 
striker  is  seized  by  the  feet  by  two  policemen,  then  he  is  in¬ 
verted  and  held  with  his  head  so  close  to  the  ground  that  he  is 
forced  to  protect  it  as  best  he  can  by  using  his  hands  as  feet, 
as  he  is  escorted  in  that  position  to  the  jail. 

Many  investigators  have  tried  to  determine  the  value  of 
Australian  industrial  legislation.  Some  of  their  opinions  are  as 
follows : 

Paul  Kellogg  says : 

But  it  is  not  through  fear  of  fine  and  certainly  not  through  the 
martyrdom  of  imprisonment  that  men  and  women  are  to  be  lead  to  agree 
with  their  masters.  The  new  act  will  continue  to  succeed  as  a  preven¬ 
tion  of  strikes  in  spite  of  its  strike  prevention  clauses  rather  than  be¬ 
cause  of  them. 

Sidney  Low  in  the  April  Fortnightly  concludes : 

It  would  be  rash  to  affirm  that  the  Australian  precedent  has  been 
sufficiently  successful  to  call  for  hasty  imitations  by  other  and  more 
complex  communities. 


164 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Hugh  H.  Lusk,  a  most  ardent  advocate  of  the  system,  says : 

However  anxiously  I  have  looked  around  for  some  way  in  which  the 
system  of  New  Zealand  could  be  applied  here  (The  United  States),  1 
have  been  met  by  difficulties  that  seemed  to  me  insuperable. 

When  the  law  of  1901  expired,  New  South  Wales  enacted  the 
law  of  1908  which  practically  abandoned  compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion.  Wage  boards  were  provided  for  the  more  important 
groups  of  industry.  There  was  a  clause  enabling  unorganized 
labor  to  appeal  to  the  Wage  Board  for  relief,  but  no  such  ap¬ 
peal  has  ever  been  made.  Strikes  and  lockouts  were  made  illegal 
under  certain  conditions  only.  Though  a  penal  clause  of  the 
law  was  strengthened,  it  has  not  prevented  large  bodies  of  men 
from  striking. 

In  1902,  12,000  coal  miners  went  on  strike;  1,000  men  were 
idle  in  other  industries  as  a  result.  Then  in  December  Parlia¬ 
ment  passed  a  coercive  act  giving  the  police  power  to  break  up 
any  meeting  for  strike  purposes,  making  the  procedure  more 
effective  and  increasing  the  severity  of  the  penalties.  In  De¬ 
cember,  1910,  the  government  secured  the  conviction  of  the 
president  of  the  Colliers  Employes’  Association,  sentencing  him 
to  one  year  at  hard  labor  in  prison.  Three  other  leaders  were 
given  sentences  of  eight  months,  and  others  shorter  terms. 

A  short  time  ago  a  published  interview  with  J.  S.  Badger,  an 
American  who  has  been  living  in  Brisbane  for  sixteen  years,  in¬ 
dicated  that  compulsory  arbitration  had  not  resulted  in  the  kind 
of  feeling  between  employers  and  employes  necessary  to  indus¬ 
trial  peace,  but  rather  alienation  was  increasing.  He  said : 

The  question  of  getting  labor  and  dealing  with  it,  is  a  very  serious 
one  in  Australia.  The  country  has,  perhaps,  led  in  labor  legislation,  and 
all  disputes  between  employers  and  employes  are  subject  to  arbitration. 
There  is  a  Federal  Arbitration  Board,  and  in  each  State  there  are  arbi¬ 
tration  courts,  or  wage  boards  for  each  separate  industry.  These  last 
have  an  equal  membership  of  employers  and  employes,  with  an  inde¬ 
pendent  chairman,  and  they  settle  all  details  about  maximum  hours  and 
minimum  wages.  Their  decisions,  when  approved  by  a  minister,  and 
gazetted,  have  the  force  of  laws,  and  severe  penalties  are  provided  for 
their  infraction.  These  laws  are  enforced  rigidly  against  the  employer, 
but  it  has  been  found  very  difficult  to  enforce  them  against  the  em¬ 
ployes.  The  whole  history  of  this  legislation  has  shown  that  you  can 
readily  get  an  employer,  and  fine  him,  or  worse,  but  if  a  large  number 
of  employes  are  dissatisfied,  and  decide  to  stop  work,  there  is  no  way  of 
making  them  take  up  their  tools  again.  If  you  haul  them  up,  they  snap 
their  fingers.  If  10,000  men  decide  they  won’t  work,  it  would  be  a  little 
more  than  the  government  could  do  to  lock  up  the  whole  lot  or  at¬ 
tempt  to  fine  them. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  Brisbane,  the  “Country  with¬ 
out  Strikes,”  of  which  the  late  Henry  D.  Lloyd  wrote,  a  general 
strike,  completely  paralyzed  all  industry  and  commerce  last 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


165 


spring.  The  causes  of  the  strike  were  the  refusal  of  the  man¬ 
agement  to  grant  permission  to  street  railway  employes  to  wear 
the  metal  badge  of  their  union  while  at  work,  and  the  long  delay 
in  bringing  the  matter  before  the  Arbitration  Court.  When 
finally  the  men  did  win  a  favorable  decision  from  the  Arbitra¬ 
tion  Court,  the  employers  appealed  the  case  to  the  High  Court. 

Compulsory  arbitration  can  not  guarantee  industrial  peace. 
If  arbitration  is  followed  by  more  harmonious  conditions,  it 
must  be  arbitration  sanctioned  by  the  employes;  that  is  to  say, 
voluntary  arbitration.  Where  there  has  been  organization  of 
the  workers,  voluntary  arbitration  has  become  the  prevailing 
custom  in  American  industry.  Why  should  we  change  to  a 
method  that  has  not  secured  as  satisfactory  results,  where  tried? 

In  the  light  of  such  experience  with  compulsory  arbitration 
organized  labor  is  justified  in  objecting  to  having  any  such  leg¬ 
islation  foisted  upon  it  under  the  pretence  and  euphonious  name 
of  peace.  Labor  seeks  justice,  and  peace  will  naturally  follow,— 
peace  is  a  result,  not  a  casual  element.  Labor  deprecates  all 
such  suggestions  introduced  in  the  name  of  social  welfare,  but 
really  serving  as  an  entering  wedge  whereby  the  people  may  be 
beguiled  into  adopting  a  regulation  prejudicial  to  the  best  inter¬ 
ests  of  a  great  proportion  of  the  population— the  workers.  Labor 
will  oppose  compulsory  arbitration  under  any  guise. 

RAILROAD  CONTROL1 

These  arbitration  boards,  whether  in  Australia,  or  in  New 
Zealand,  or  where  not,  all  operate  upon  the  same  general  prin¬ 
ciple;  that  is,  a  board  of  conciliation  or  arbitration  is  selected 
composed  of  representatives  from  both  sides.  In  this  bill  it  is 
called  the  board  of  wages  and  working  conditions.  The  findings 
of  this  board  go  to  some  real  tribunal  named  by  the  govern¬ 
ment,  whose  determination  has  the  force  and  effect  of  law. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  examine  the  precedents.  A  look  into 
the  working  of  the  thing  will  convince  any  careful  analyst  of  its 
inevitable  result.  Here  are  the  representatives  of  the  craft 
and  the  representatives  of  the  employer  endeavoring  to  reach  a 
satisfactory  wage.  As  long  as  the  traffic  will  bear  it,  whether  it 
has  been  among  railroads  or  in  private  industrial  institutions, 


1  Speech  of  Hon.  A.  Owsley  Stanley,  of  Kentucky,  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  Monday,  December  15,  and  Tuesday,  December  16,  1919. 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


166 

the  result  has  been  to  raise  the  wage.  It  does  not  matter 
whether  men  are  mining  coal  or  spinning  cotton  or  operating  a 
railroad,  as  a  rule  they  are  always  willing  to  stand  a  raise  in 
wages,  provided  that  raise  shall  apply  to  all  who  are  engaged 
in  the  industry  in  the  country,  and  let  the  ultimate  consumer 
absorb  it. 

In  addition  to  that,  as  I  called  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate 
yesterday,  this  is  compulsory  arbitration.  The  man  is  com¬ 
manded  to  work,  not  because  the  conditions  are  suitable  or  the 
compensation  satisfactory,  but  because  the  law  commands  it, 
and  you  can  not  in  fairness  compel  a  man  to  work  without  af¬ 
fording  him  a  compensatory  wage.  For  that  reason  a  minimum 
wage  has  already  accompanied  a  compulsory  arbitrament  of  the 
question. 

In  a  report  made  by  the  Board  of  wages  and  working  condi¬ 
tions  under  conciliation  and  arbitration  acts  of  Australia  and 
New  Zealand,  Mr.  Aves  to  the  Right  Hon.  H.  J.  Gladstone,  in 
1908,  after  a  thorough  review  of  this  system  in  both  countries, 
he  says : 

But  the  real  conditions  of  industry  are  very  far  from  being  deter¬ 
mined  simply  by  the  wages  that  have  been  paid,  and  if  laid  bare  I  think 
the  attendant  conditions,  when  coupled  with  the  increasing  inefficiency, 
lack  of  interest  in  work,  and  trade-union  intervention,  would  be  found  to 
be  a  greater  cause  of  discontent  and  dissatisfaction  among  employees 
than  the  nominal  wages  fixed. 

Another  distinguished  author  has  said : 

I  am  quite  sure  that  the  arbitration  system  has  resulted  in  the  loss 
of  industrial  efficiency  far  greater  than  ever  resulted  from  strikes. 

A  thorough  and  exhaustive  report  on  the  working  of  compul¬ 
sory  and  conciliatory  and  arbitration  laws  was  made  by  the 
royal  commission,  a  commission  that  visited  all  the  countries  in 
which  these  boards  were  in  operation,  and  made  anything  but 
an  unfavorable  report.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate,  how¬ 
ever,  to  this  pertinent  paragraph,  the  thing  that  seems  to  have 
been  overlooked  by  those  who  are  studying  simply  its  effect 
upon  the  employer  and  the  employee  and  overlooking  the  rights 
and  interest  of  the  general  public. 

They  said : 

The  effect  of  the  working  of  the  act — 

As  far  as  the  general  public  is  concerned,  and  that  is  the 
thing  in  which  we  are  principally  interested  here — 

has  been  undoubtedly  to  make  the  public  to  pay  generally  more  for  the 

products  of  an  industry  which  has  been  regulated  by  a  board  or  the 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


167 


court,  when  the  tariff  is  high  enough  or  other  conditions  occur  to  prevent 
foreign  competition.  I  have  already  pointed  out  that,  in  the  boot  trade, 

the  conditions  imposed  are  such  that  outside  producers  are  able  to 
leap  the  tariffs  fence,  and  a  Member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  said 
to  me:  “If  the  present  duties  are  done  away  with  the  act  may  as  well 
be  repealed  as  far  a3  raising  wages  in  the  manufacturing  industries  is 
concerned.”  The  coal-mine  owners  agreed  upon  an  advance  in  price 
when  the  cost  of  hewing  was  raised,  and  the  flour  millers  acted  similarly. 
Building  has  become  more  expensive,  and  in  this  trade  the  contractors 
at  first  made  very  little  opposition  to>  the  claims  for  advance  in  wages, 
secure  as  they  considered  themselves  in  the  ability  to  pass  on  the  extra 
cost  of  construction  to  those  who  required  their  services.  Now,  how¬ 
ever — 

And  this  should  give  us  pause  at  this  time — 

they  are  of  opinion  that  the  tendency  of  the  awards  is  likely  to  narrow 
the  scope  of  their  business,  and  they  are  making  efforts  to  oppose  more 
effectually  the  demands  of  the.  men.  Cost  of  living,  particularly  rent, 
is  becoming  dearer,  I  was  informed. 

The  inevitable  result  of  allowing  the  employer  and  the  em¬ 
ployee  to  agree  on  the  wage,  and  then  authorizing  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  give  that  agreement  the  force  and  effect  of  law,  the 
public  unconsidered  and  unrepresented,  is  to  arbitrarily  raise 
wages.  Australia  and  New  Zealand  abandoned  every  semblance 
of  free  trade,  closed  their  ports,  when  they  went  to  this  per¬ 
nicious  policy,  and  kited  wages  so  high  that  they  were  only 
stopped  when  the  cost  of  living  became  acute. 

Are  we  prepared  at  this  time  to  adopt  a  policy  whose  friends 
admit  results  in  inefficiency  among  the  laborers  and  increased 
cost  of  the  product  of  labor? 

In  my  opinion  the  fear  that  haunts  the  minds  of  members  of 
the  Senate  and  of  members  of  the  committee  and  has  induced 
them  to  adopt  this  dangerous  expedient,  the  fear  that  there  will 
be  a  universal  dislocation  of  transportation  business  in  the 
United  States,  a  universal  paralysis  of  the  whole  movement  of 
commerce  from  ocean  to  ocean,  is  unwarranted.  It  never  oc¬ 
curred  before  and  we  have  no  reason  to  apprehend  that  it  will 
occur  in  the  future. 

A  strike,  especially  among  the  employees  of  common  car¬ 
riers,  among  engineers  and  firemen  and  conductors,  is  a  dernier 
resort  to  which  they  never  come  except  after  long  negotiations 
and  a  failure  to  reach  any  kind  of  agreement.  These  strikes, 
these  disagreements,  are  the  result  of  the  failure  of  the  em¬ 
ployees  to  concur  or  to  agree  in  some  arrangement  with  their 
employer.  Is  it  possible  that  when  you  have  turned  the  roads 
back  to  not  less  than  20  nor  more  than  35  separate  and  distinct 
corporations,  that  each  one  and  all  of  the  corporations  will  have 
the  same  trouble  at  the  same  time?  If  they  are  local,  if  the 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


1 68 

walkout  occurs  upon  one  road  and  not  upon  the  other,  then  you 
are  not  face  to  face  with  the  evil  and  need  no  new  legislation  to 
handle  it,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  apprehend  that  it  will  be 
universal  in  the  future  any  more  than  it  has  been  in  the  past. 

Now,  let  us  suppose  the  thing  should  occur.  Let  us  suppose 
that  2,000,000  men  should  at  the  same  time  and  by  common 
agreement  all  quit  their  work  at  the  stroke  of  the  clock.  Re¬ 
member  the  bill,  as  the  chairman  of  the  committee  has  said,  is 
not  like  the  injunction  at  Indianapolis.  It  is  not  directed  against 
a  half  a  dozen  labor  leaders.  It  applies  to  all,  says  the  chair¬ 
man,  and  that  is  true.  It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  law 
of  conspiracy  that  where  a  number  of  men  agree  to  do  an  illegal 
thing  it  does  not  matter  about  the  extent  to  which  each  partici¬ 
pates  in  the  enterprise,  they  are  all  equally  guilty. 

If  ioo  men  agree  to  commit  a  robbery  and  ninety-five  out  of 
the  ioo  act  as  mere  pickets,  all  are  guilty.  The  same  applies 
here.  If  they  all  agree  to  walk  out  you  have  2,000,000  men  who 
have  violated  an  act  of  Congress.  What  are  you  going  to  do 
with  them — put  them  all  in  jail?  In  1910  the  prisons  of  the 
United  States  accommodated  a  little  over  111,000  men.  You 
would  have  to  put  twenty  men  in  each  cell,  if  you  had  deputy 
marshals  enough  and  soldiers  enough  and  civil  officers  enough 
to  apprehend  and  incarcerate  2,000,000  men.  When  you  did, 
when  the  last  railroader  was  in  prison,  who  would  run  your 
railroads?  If  you  could  go  and  find  new  men  to  run  the  roads 
after  imprisoning  these  men,  would  it  not  be  easier  to  find  them 
before  you  imprison  them? 

You  know  and  I  know  and  the  employees  upon  the  railroads 
know  that  the  law  can  not  in  the  nature  of  things  be  enforced. 
The  only  reason  for  passing  it  is  the  frail  hope  that  it  will 
never  have  to  be  executed. 

That  it  will  never  be  violated.  The  laws  of  the  Supreme 
Judge,  from  whose  decrees  there  is  no  appeal  and  from  whose 
punishment  and  vengeance  there  is  no  escape,  are  violated,  the 
children  of  Israel  violated  them  before  the  thunders  of  His 
wrath  had  ceased  to  reverberate  about  Sinai’s  flaming  top.  No 
law  has  ever  been  written  yet  by  God  or  man  that  has  not  been 
violated,  and  yet  we  are  told  that  while  we  know  this  act  is  im¬ 
potent,  while  we  know  it  can  not  be  enforced,  we 'believe  the 
moral  effect,  the  sanction  of  it,  will  be  such  that  the  men  will 
obey  it,  although  they  have  told  you  that  they  will  not. 

The  act  not  only  never  prevented  a  strike  and  never  will,  but 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


169 


the  history  of  it  in  every  country  that  has  ever  tried  it  shows 
that  it  is  the  most  provocative  thing  of  strikes  and  dislocations 
and  revolts  among  labor  that  has  ever  been  conceived  by  the 
wit  of  man.  I  know  of  nothing  more  interesting  than  the 
funeral  orations  which  were  delivered  over  the  act  in  the  New 
Zealand  Parliament  after  ten  years  of  trial  and  the  admission 
of  utter  failure,  of  failure  so  ludicrous  and  pathetic  as  to 
amount  to  a  legislative  and  judicial  fiasco  and  a  farce. 

In  discussing  the  failure  of  an  act  which  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  says  in  all  respect  is  like  this,  that  in  every  es¬ 
sential  resembles  it,  this  act  is  a  twin  of  the  dead  New  Zealand 
experience.  Said  Mr.  Rigg,  a  member  of  the  Australian  Parlia¬ 
ment,  on  July  1,  1908: 

I  have  said  it  was  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  strikes  could  be  prevented 
by  coercive  legislation;  yet  this  is  what  we  attempted  (p.  48).  Now, 
sir,  I  have  already  said  that  we  committed  a  great  error  when  we  made 
that  change.  What  has  been  the  result?  We  have  found  that  we  have 
put  a  law  on  the  statute  book  that  we  have  been  unable  to  enforce,  and 
no  one  seems  capable  of  suggesting  any  effective  and  proper  means  of 
enforcing  it.  Let  me  remind  the  honorable  gentlemen  that  threats  of 
imprisonment  were  used  to  compel  the  payment  of  fines  jmder  the  act; 
that,  in  fact,  writs  of  attachment  were  issued  against  strikers  which 
entailed  imprisonment  if  they  had  not  been  respected.  Again,  we  know 
that  where  there  is  an  extensive  strike,  and  especially  where  the  strikers 
are  assisted  and  mutually  supported  by  other  unions,  it  is  impossible  to 
enforce  the  law  by  imprisonment — quite  impossible.  Without  consider¬ 
ing  the  obvious  difficulty  of  accommodating  as  prisoners  a  very  large 
number  of  our  fellow  citizens,  to  enforce  it  would  be  to  deprive  em¬ 
ployers  during  the  term  of  imprisonment  of  the  very  labor  they  can  not 
do  without  and  thus  to  prolong  all  the  evils  that  arise  from  the  strike 
itself. 

This  brings  me  to  the  next  method  of  enforcing  the  law,  which  is  by 
fine,  and  I  ask,  is  it  possible  to  recover  the  fine?  I  say  no. 

This  man  is  speaking  from  ten  years’  experience  with  the 
operation  of  the  act  under  his  own  eyes. 

We  have  had  recently,  first,  a  union  distributing  the  funds  in  order 
that  they  might  not  be  attached,  and  then  we  have  had  the  case  where 
the  goods  of  the  strikers  have  been  distrained,  a  number  of  articles 
seized,  and,  when  put  up  to  auction,  bought  in  for  12s.  6d.  by  an  inter¬ 
ested  party  and  returned  to  the  owners.  Now  we  are  adopting  another 
method,  which  is  the  attachment  of  wages  over  and  above  the  sum  of 
£2  a  week.  Now,  without  expressing  any  opinion  as  to  the  legality  of 
such  a  course,  let  me  ask:  Supposing  the  attachment  of  wages  results  in 
the  men  refusing  to  work  any  longer,  how  are  you  going  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  the  fine?  Have  you  not  then  reproduced  the  conditions  that 
existed  during  the  strike?  The  strikers  who  have  been  fined  say,  “So 
long  as  our  wages  are  attached  by  the  court  we  will  not  work,”  and  that 
means  of  recovering  the  fine  is  destroyed. 

I  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  another  brief  and  graphic 
'  description  of  the  expiring  agonies  of  the  same  act  in  the  first 
country  that  ever  tried  it.  I  quote  here  from  the  Federationist : 

For  the  first  twelve  years  after  the  adoption  of  compulsory  arbitration 
in  Australasia  its  advocates  had  many  reasons  for  satisfaction.  The 
grievances  and  the  wrongs  of  the  men  were  so  obvious  that  no  court 


170 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


could  refuse  them  awards,  so  the  workers  were  satisfied.  As  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  law  coincided  with  the  period  of  prosperity  the  employers 
did  not  seriously  object  to  increased  wages. 

As  long  as  you  agree  to  boost  wages  it  works.  Have  you 
any  need  of  law  on  a  rising  scale?  Are  wages  rising  fast 
enough  in  this  country  to  suit  you,  or  do  you  want  to  put  this 
thing  in  under  them  and  give  them  another  shove  upward? 

The  high  tariff  wall — 

That  is  another  thing  that  is  necessary  as  well  as  the  mini¬ 
mum  wage  scale.  You  can  not  operate  this  proposition  without 
excluding  labor,  that  is  governed  by  the  law  of  supply  and  de¬ 
mand,  and  not  by  boards  and  commissions.  Wages  should  rise 
according  to  a  natural  demand  and  not  according  to  the 
maneuvers  of  boards  and  commissions,  to  the  detriment  of  the 
general  public. 

Beginning  with  1901,  however,  dissatisfaction  developed  among  the 
workers.  This  culminated  in  a  long  series  of  strikes,  beginning  in  1906, 
when  a  strike  occurred  on  the  tramways  in  Auckland.  In  1907  there 
was  a  large  strike  among  the  slaughtermen.  In  1908  the  coal  miners 

went  out — 

All  in  the  teeth  of  this  law. 

The  same  year  the  motormen  and  the  conductors  in  Auckland  struck, 
and  the  bakers  of  Wellington.  The  labor  report  for  New  Zealand  for 
1908  showed  23  strikes,  affecting  2,389  men,  and  since  then  strikes  have 
increased  in  number  and  in  scope. 

In  February,  1907,  the  slaughterers  demanded  an  increase  in  wages 
The  packers  refused  to  grant  this  and  referred  the  question  to  the  arbi¬ 
tration  court.  Knowing  that  the  court  would  consume  the  most  valu¬ 
able  time  of  the  season  in  reaching  a  decision,  which  in  the  end  would 
probably  be  unfavorable,  the  men  struck  illegally.  The  four  principal 
centers  of  the  packing  business  were  tied  up.  This  desperate  situation 
forced  the  employers  to  grant  the  increase.  The  court  was  in  a  dilemma, 
for  “the  law  must  be  upheld.”  They  arrested  the  slaughterers  and  fined 
them  $25  each.  It  was  a  long  and  tedious  process.  Men  were  numerous 
and  hard  to  identify.  Those  brought  in  were  searched,  but  the  $25  was 
not  forthcoming.  The  wheels  of  justice  ground  slowly;  when  summer 
was  ended  many  unfined  slaughterers  had  vanished.  The  law  had  been 
defied  with  impunity;  it  was  impotent  to  prevent  the  strike  and  could 
not  enforce  the  penalty  for  striking. 

The  necessity  of  enforcing  the  law  prompted  the  Government  to  in¬ 
crease  the  penalties  for  its  violation.  In  the  future  anyone  who  struck 
while  a  case  was  pending  might  be  fined,  and  in  lieu  of  the  fine  his 
goods  confiscated  or  the  man  himself  imprisoned.  Any  labor  union  or¬ 
dering  a  strike,  or  permitting  its  members  to  strike  must  pay  a  fine. 
Then,  lest  the  unions  evade  the  law  by  withdrawing  their  registration, 
the  fine  for  striking  was  extended  to  all  trades  supplying  a  utility  or  neces¬ 
sity  whether  the  trades  were  organized  or  not. 

Strikes  among  the  slaughtermen  have  been  especially  numerous  in 
New  Zealand,  and  for  that  reason  are  counted  separately  in  the  labor 
reports.  In  the  year  1908-9  penalties  were  inflicted  on  workmen  in  266 
cases,  the  fines  aggregating  $6,650,  of  which,  at  the  end  of  six  months, 
58%  per  cent,  remained  unpaid. 

In.  1908,  after  having  presented  their  grievances  again  and  again  and 
receiving  no  answer  except  the  dismissal  of  the  men  making  the  com¬ 
plaints,  miners  struck.  Preparatory  to  action  they  divided  their  union 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


171 


funds  among  the  individual  members  to  prevent  their  being  levied  on 
for  fines.  The  employers  invoked  the  new  law.  The  household  goods 
of  the  men  were  seized — cook  stoves,  sewing  machines,  and  furniture, 
including  articles  owned  by  wives  before  marriage.  The  goods  must  be 
sold  at  public  auction,  but  buyers  there  were  none.  Finally  a  smiling 
man  offered  $1.25  for  the  whole  lot,  and  got  it.  Before  night  the  miners 
goods  had  been  returned  to  the  miners’  homes.  Thus  it  was  again 
plain  the  law  could  be  defied  with  impunity.  Enforcement  of  law  de¬ 
pends  on  popular  sentiment  or  concept  of  justice. 

Mere  enactment  of  legislation  is  no  remedy.  Compulsion  can  not  be 
extended  beyond  certain  limits. 

The  law  referred  to,  it  will  be  understood,  was  perfectly  fair ; 
that  is,  it  was  ambidextrous;  it  applied  to  both  sides.  The  law 
provided  heavy  pains  and  penalties  against  the  employer  who 
did  not  raise  wages  on  demand.  The  boot  and  shoe  makers  of 
New  Zealand  refused  to  obey  an  award  of  the  commission;  at 
least  they  closed  their  shops  and  boots  and  shoes  were  imported. 
Then  the  workmen  turned  on  the  law. 

J.  Stephen  Jeans,  late  secretary  of  the  Iron  and  Steel  Insti¬ 
tute,  in  a  comprehensive  review  of  the  whole  question,  has  this 
to  say  about  compulsory  arbitration: 

Practically,  however,  all  experience  and  precedents  up  to  the  present 
time  are  dead  against  compulsion  in  any  form.  You  cannot  very  well 
compel  a  man  to  agree  to  submit  to  reference  whether  he  shall  be  re¬ 
quired  to  work  for  a  certain  employer  for  a  certain  wage  at  a  certain 
time.  This  must  be  left  entirely  to  the  man’s  own  choice.  Nor  can  you 
deal  differently  with  a  body  of  men,  however  numerous,  so  long  as  they 
have  broken  no  laws  and  rendered  themselves  amenable  to  no  penalties. 
Workmen  must  be  continued  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  dispose  of 
their  labor  at  whatsoever  price  they  like,  and  this  being  so  they  can  not 
be  compelled  to  arbitrate  as  to  what  the  price  of  that  labor  shall  be  or 
as  to  any  other*  general  condition  affecting  its  value  and  duration. 

In  my  humble  opinion,  yon  are  attempting  to  incorporate 
into  this  act  a  foolish  and  indefensible  expedient  highly 
offensive  to  labor,  utterly  useless  to  capital,  and  eminently 
calculated  to  produce  the  very  evils  it  is  designed  to  correct. 
Such  legislation  has  often  produced  strikes  by  the  wholesale. 
It  has  never  settled  one,  it  has  never  prevented  one,  and  it 
never  will. 

Prof.  John  R.  Commons,  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin, 
and  Prof.  John  B.  Andrews,  authorities  of  national  repute, 
have  written  an  exhaustive  work  upon  this  subject,  entitled 
“Principles  of  Labor  Legislation.”  With  no  political  bias, 
without  the  question  being  agitated,  speaking  not  as  advo¬ 
cates  but  friendly  to  many  provisions  of  the  law,  they  re¬ 
view  with  pertinent  comments  the  history  of  compulsory 
arbitration  in  Australia.  They  say: 

*  «  *  Turn  now  to  the  turbulent  history  of  New  South  Wales. 
*  *  *  This  one  State  furnishes  more  than  half  of  the  days  lost  by 


172 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


strikes  in  all  of  Australia.  *  *  *  After  a  futile  voluntary  arbitra¬ 

tion  law  of  1892,  New  South  Wales  passed  its  first  compulsory  law  in 
1901.  *  *  *  The  act  expired  in  1908.  The  single  court  had  not 
disposed  of  the  cases  brought  before  it  with  sufficient  rapidity.  The  anti- 
labor  ministry  in  power  at’  that  time  adopted  a  comprehensive  system  of 
wage  boards  modeled  after  the  Victorian  system,  whose  determinations 
were  subject  to  appeal  to  a  special  court  of  arbitration — 

The  exact  provision  which  is  contained  in  this  proposed 
legislation — 

All  strikes  were  declared  illegal.  A  system  of  fines  was  adopted  to  reach 
the  union  funds.  Strikes,  almost  of  the  character  of  rebellion,  followed 
and  the  next  year  the  same  ministry  rushed  through  a  bill  applicable  to 
strikes  in  certain  necessary  industries,  like  coal  mining.  These  provided 
a  penalty  of  not  exceeding  12  months’  imprisonment  for  instigating  strikes, 
and  the  same  length  of  time  for  mere  participation  in  a  strike  meeting — 

What  was  the  effect  of  that  on  the  coal-mining  industry? 

Immediately  there  followed  a  strike  of  all  the  coal  miners  in  New 
South  Wales — 

They  accepted  the  challenge  instantly — 

The  situation  became  intolerable,  and  the  Labor  Party  came  back  to 
power.  A  new  act  was  passed  in  1912.  The  severe  penalties  were  with¬ 
drawn,  and  special  conciliation  boards  were  created  for  mine  workers. 

But  neither  under  antilabor  ministries  nor  under  the  present  labor 
ministry  is  New  South  Wales  industrially  quiet.  Frantic  assertion  of 
authority  has  been  followed  by  flabbiness  in  the  administration  of  the 
law.  This  has  resulted  in  a  series  of  headless  strikes.  The  officials  of 
the  union,  who  might  be  prosecuted,  make  a  show  of  dissuading  the 
men — 

Have  we  not  had  a  similar  experience  recently  in  Indi¬ 
ana? — 

and  the  men  strike  with  neither  political  nor  economic  consequence^, 
as  the  Government  will  not  prosecute  the  rank  and  file,  and  the  em¬ 
ployer  is  bound  by  the  awards.  Practically  the  compulsory  arbitration 

system  of  New  South  Wales  has  become  an  imperfect  wage-board  system. 

The  act  of  New  South  Wales  was  repealed.  A  provision 
was  placed  in  the  law  of  1912  mildly  reprobating  strikes  and 
in  certain  instances  punishing  them  as  a  misdemeanor,  and 
again  the  laborers  struck. 

The  mild  act  of  1912  was  not  anything  like  as  obnoxious 
as  the  previous  one.  Under  it  a  strike  or  lockout  was  re¬ 
garded  not  as  criminal  but  rather  as  an  extravagant  ex¬ 
pedient,  liable  to  penalization  extending  to  a  charge  on  any 
moneys  then  or  thereafter  due  to  the  person  ordered  to  pay 
such  penalty.  The  court  was  also  authorized  to  grant  a  writ 
of  injunction  to  restrain  any  person  from  continuing  to  insti¬ 
gate  or  to  aid  in  a  lockout  or  strike,  the  maximum  penalty 
being  imprisonment  for  six  months. 

In  protest  against  and  in  defiance  of  this  act,  in  a  country 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


173 


containing  less  than  1,000,000  adult  males,  there  followed  in 
one  year  289  dislocations,  involving  144,704  men,  and  en¬ 
tailing  the  appalling  loss  of  2,861,595  working  days,  with  the 
result  that  the  objectionable  provision  was  repealed  in  the 
following  year  by  an  amendment  establishing  the  principle 
that  strikes  and  lockouts,  with  certain  exceptions,  were  ex¬ 
pressly  recognized  as  lawful. 

Every  country  that  has  ever  attempted  to  enact  such  a  law 
as  we  are  now  attempting  to  enact  has  precipitated  strikes, 
with  the  result  that  the  law  has  been  repealed  and  the  right 
of  laborers  to  quit  the  employment  and  personal  service  of 
any  man  or  corporation  without  let  or  hindrance  has  been 
expressly  recognized.  Canada  has  done  so;  New  Zealand 
has  done  so;  New  South  Wales  has  done  so;  England  has 
done  so;  and  yet,  in  the  teeth  of  these  multitudinous  failures 
everywhere  in  the  civilized  world  wherever  the  attempt 
has  been  made,  conservative  men  at  this  crucial  time,  at  this 
perilous  time,  are  endeavoring  to  revive  this  indefensible  ex¬ 
periment. 

Great  Britain  and  Canada  alike,  admitting  the  impotency 
and  folly  of  such  provisions  as  this,  have  incorporated  into 
the  law  express  provisions  recognizing  the  right  of  men  to 
quit  and  guaranteeing  immunity  to  employees  who  in¬ 
dividually  or  collectively  protest  against  objectionable  work¬ 
ing  conditions  by  a  refusal  to  longer  endure  them. 

After  more  than  ten  centuries  of  experience  with  every 
character  of  legislation  penalizing  combinations  among  em¬ 
ployees  or  any  character  of  interference  in  the  relations  of 
master  and  servant,  employer  and  employee  alike,  in  Great 
Britain  have  joined  in  the  utter  repudiation  of  the  whole 
scheme  of  compulsory  arbitration. 

As  I  said  on  yesterday,  we  have  had  for  2,000  years  ex¬ 
perience  with  legislation  similar  to  this.  Senators  will  re¬ 
member  from  the  reading  of  Blackstone  that  it  was  a  fixed 
principle  of  English  law  for  five  centuries  that  any  combina¬ 
tion  among  workmen  for  the  purpose  of  extorting  an  in¬ 
creased  wage  or  otherwise  inconveniencing  an  employer  was 
illegal;  that  any  interference  between  a  man  and  master  was 
a  misdemeanor  or  worse. 

Very  recently  this  whole  question  has  been  subjected  to 


174 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


the  most  exhaustive  inquiry  by  the  Whitley  Commission. 
In  commenting  upon  the  report  of  this  commission,  Mr. 
Joseph  Horton,  British  correspondent  to  the  Iron  Trade  Re¬ 
view,  of  August  i,  1918  thus  summarizes  the  result  of  the 
findings  of  this  commission. 

These  are  not  the  protests  of  labor;  these  are  the  cold 
and  deliberate  judgments  of  capitalists  and  of  employers  of 
workmen.  I  quote  from  the  Iron  Trade  Review  of  August 
1,  1918: 

Should  employers  and  employees  be  compelled  to  submit  their  dis¬ 
agreements  to  arbitration?  Should  employees  be  compelled  to  remain  at 
work  while  disagreements  are  being  arbitrated?  These  were  among  the 
big  questions  studied  by  the  commission  appointed  to  investigate  indus¬ 
trial  unrest  in  Great  Britain.  In  the  latest  report  of  the  commission 
both  questions  are  answered  in  the  negative.  The  Whitley  investiga¬ 
tion  commission,  as  the  board  is  called,  found  that  neither  employer  nor 
employee  favored  compulsory  arbitration. 

In  this  the  second  article  written  by  the  Iron  Trade  Review’s  British 
correspondent  dealing  with  the  British  labor  problem,  the  commission’s 
reasons  for  its  findings  are  set  forth.  It  is  pointed  out  that  the  main¬ 
stay  of  British  industrial  peace  is  the  frank  discussion  of  problems  be¬ 
tween  employers  and  employees,  and  voluntary  arbitration  in  all  cases 
where  such  discussion  fails  to  bring  about  the  desired  results. 

The  commission  is  strong  in  its  advocacy  of  industrial  councils  in  the 
various  industries  as  a  reliable  means  of  arriving  at  a  satisfactory  under¬ 
standing.  The  success  of  the  voluntary  arbitration  plan  has  been  founded 
on  the  confidence  of  both  employers  and  employees  in  their  arbitrators. 

If  it  is  not  possible  to  enforce  such  an  act  in  little  islands, 
in  thinly  populated  countries,  how  will  it  be  possible  to 
enforce  such  an  act  in  this  great  country?  The  male  adult 
population  of  New  South  Wales  and  of  New  Zealand  does 
not  equal  the  number  of  men  now  in  the  service  of  our  rail¬ 
roads.  There  are  not  600,000  adult,  able-bodied  workmen  in 
either  New  South  Wales  or  in  New  Zealand.  There  are  more 
men  in  the  employ  of  the  common  carirers  of  the  United 
States  than  there  are  men,  women,  and  children  in  either 
one  of  these  countries;  and  yet  these  little,  thinly  populated 
countries  could  not  enforce  such  an  act  on  account  of  the 
number  of  men  it  affected.  What  are  you  going  to  do  with 
2,000,000  of  men? 

Mr.  President,  I  have  followed  this  committee  and  its 
great  work  with  interest  and  with  admiration.  Its  members 
have  brought  learning,  experience,  patience,  and  courage  to 
the  solving  of  an  immense  problem  and  to  the  performance 
of  a  titanic  task.  You  have  revolutionized  a  great  industry 
in  America,  You  have  taken  these  roads  from  the  control 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


1 7S 

of  the  state  governments  and  placed  them  under  federal 
control.  You  have  supervised  and  controlled  the  issuance 
of  their  securities,  the  payment  of  their  rates,  the  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  corporations. 

If  we  must  make  this  attempt,  let  it  be  done  in  another 
bill  and  at  another  time.  This  all-important  and  vital  legis¬ 
lation  should  not  be  shackled,  should  not  be  endangered  by 
this  provision,  requested  neither  by  master  nor  by  servant, 
and  sternly,  and  1  think  wisely,  opposed  by  millions  of  men 
directly  affected  by  it.  This  bill  contains  many  things  which 
are  wise  and  good  and  more  which  are  untried  and  new. 

We  are  about  to  reorganize  and  revolutionize  a  system  of 
transportation  which  equals  in  extent  and  value  the  mileage 
of  all  other  railroads  on  the  globe;  we  have  provided  for 
the  reorganization  of  the  corporations  which  have  hitherto 
controlled  and  operated  these  systems;  we  have  transferred 
them  from  the  jurisdictions  of  the  state  to  the  federal  gov¬ 
ernment;  we  have  regulated  their  earnings  and  the  issue  of 
their  securities.  The  industrial  peace  and  prosperity  of  this 
Republic  rests  in  great  measure  upon  the  success  and  the 
great  work  this  committee  has  attempted  and  to  which  it 
has  given  earnest  thought  and  indefatigable  attention  and 
to  which  it  has  brought  the  talents  and  the  experience  of 
men  who  have  given  years  of  their  lives  to  an  understanding 
of  this  titanic  problem.  To  make  the  reorganization  of  rail¬ 
roads  and  their  return  to  private  ownership  a  success  you 
need  not  only  the  cooperation  of  presidents  of  banks  and 
railroads,  of  financiers  and  traffic  managers,  you  need  the 
cordial,  capable,  enthusiastic  cooperation  of  the  2,000,000 
men  who  have  operated  this  vast  machine  with  such  signal 
energy  and  efficiency.  Were  this  some  new  industrial  pan¬ 
acea,  not  branded  all  over  with  demonstrated  failure  wher¬ 
ever  tried,  it  would  still  be  objectionable  at  this  time. 
Owners  and  operatives  alike  have  problems  enough  to  solve, 
and  in  their  solution  we  need  the  cordial  and  capable  co¬ 
operation  of  master  and  of  man.  It  is  not  necessary,  it  is 
not  wise,  to  endanger  the  success  of  the  whole  scheme  by 
provoking  the  sullen  opposition  of  those  upon  whom  the  ex¬ 
peditious  and  efficient  movement  of  the  commerce  of  Amer¬ 
ica  admittedly  depends. 


i;6 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


INDUSTRIAL  PEACE  BY  LAW— THE  KANSAS 

WAY1 

Governor  Allen  of  Kansas  has  been  East  on  a  speaking 
trip.  He  appeared  before  the  legislatures  of  New  Jersey  and 
New  York,  addressed  the  Boston  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
and  at  the  Waldorf  Astoria  in  New  York  spoke  before  five 
hundred  diners  under  the  auspices  of  the  League  for  Indus¬ 
trial  Rights,  formerly  known  as  the  American  Anti-Boycott 
Association.  And  the  burden  of  his  message  was  every¬ 
where  the  same.  It  was  something  like  this:  We  have  found 
the  way  to  industrial  justice  and  hence  to  industrial  peace 
in  Kansas.  We  will  establish  in  Kansas  a  mecca  of  well 
ordered,  contented,  just  relationships.  Unless  you  pass 
similar  legislation  in  your  states  your  industries  will  move 
to  Kansas  where  operators  can  carry  on  their  business  in 
an  atmosphere  of  well-regulated  justice. 

Everywhere  audiences  have  listened  to  Governor  Allen 
with  deep  interest.  They  have  been  impressed.  Newspapers 
have  reported  that  we  must  have  this  Kansas  law.  Public 
speakers  have  indorsed  it.  Legislators  have  introduced  bills 
patterned  after  the  Kansas  model.  Three  of  these  are  now 
pending  in  the  legislature  of  New  York.  There  is  one  in 
New  Jersey.  There  is  a  clamor  for  such  legislation  in  other 
states. 

Never  before  in  the  history  of  the  United  States  has 
there  been  so  widespread  a  movement  of  this  sort.  There 
are  no  less  than  six  proposals  before  the  constitutional  con¬ 
vention  in  Illinois  involving  a  limitation  on  the  right  to 
strike  or  some  form  of  compulsory  arbitration.  A  constitu¬ 
tional  amendment  is  proposed  in  Massachusetts,  giving  the 
legislature  “the  right  to  pass  laws  restricting  the  right  of 
individuals  to  strike.”  There  is  a  bill  pending  in  Massachu¬ 
setts  for  compulsory  arbitration  of  street  railway  disputes, 
and  there  is  one  in  New  York  covering  food,  fuel  and  trans¬ 
portation,  in  addition  to  the  three  patterned  after  the  law 
of  Kansas. 

The  Kansas  law  is  unique.  It  is  the  first  and  so  far 
the  only  law  in  any  American  state  compelling  employes 

1John  A.  Fitch.  Survey.  44:7-8+48.  April  3,  1920. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


1 77 


and  employers  to  submit  their  differences  to  a  tribunal  for 
adjudication.  It  is  the  only  law  ever  passed  in  America  re¬ 
quiring  the  manager  of  an  industry  to  get  permission  from 
anybody  before  he  can  close  his  plant.  In  Kansas,  if  his 
industry  is  “affected  with  a  public  interest”  he  has  to  give 
reasons  for  any  desire  he  may  have  to  suspend  operations, 
and  the  court  will  examine  those  reasons.  If  it  finds  them 
“meritorious”  it  will  let  him  off.  Otherwise  he  will  have  to 
continue  to  run  his  shop  or  have  it  taken  away  from  him. 

It  would  be  about  the  same  way  with  the  workers  if 
they  had  a  similar  right.  They  haven’t.  They  can’t  show 
that  their  desire  to  quit  is  meritorious.  It  is  just  plain  down¬ 
right  illegal  to  strike,  whatever  the  reason.  And  the  pen¬ 
alty  for  violation  of  the  law  is  $1,000  fine  or  one  year  in  jail 
or  both,  if  the  offender  is  a  “person.”  If  he  is  an  officer  of 
a  corporation  or  of  a  union  the  penalty  is  $5,000  fine,  or  two 
years  in  jail  or  both. 

It  should  be  made  clear  that  this  law  does  not  apply  to 
all  industries.  It  applies  to  industries  which  are  “affected 
with  a  public  interest.”  These  industries  are  declared  to  be 
the  manufacture  or  preparation  of  food,  the  manufacture  of 
clothing,  the  mining  or  production  of  fuel,  the  transportation 
of  these  commodities,  and  all  public  utilities.  To  these  in¬ 
dustries  there  are  added,  in  the  Knight  bill  in  New  York 
the  manufacture,  production  or  handling  of  iron  and  wood 
products  intended  to  be  used  in  buildings  or  by  public  util¬ 
ities. 

The  law  creates  a  “court  of  industrial  relations,”  com¬ 
posed  of  three  “judges”  appointed  by  the  governor  to  serve 
a  term  of  three  years.  The  court  may  intervene  in  any  in¬ 
dustrial  controversy,  either  on  its  own  initiative,  at  the  re¬ 
quest  of  either  party  to  the  dispute,  or  on  the  complaint  of 
ten  citizens  or  of  the  attorney  general  of  the  state.  It  may 
investigate  the  controversy,  making  a  temporary  award  at 
the  beginning  and  a  final  award  when  the  investigation  is 
completed.  The  award  so  far  as  wages  are  concerned  is  to 
be  retroactive  to  the  date  on  which  the  investigation  was 
begun.  If  wages  are  increased  in  the  final  award  the  em¬ 
ployes  are  entitled  to  back  pay.  If  wages  are  reduced,  the 
employer  is  entitled  to  recover  the  excess  paid  in  wages 
since  the  beginning  of  the  investigation. 


i;8 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


The  investigations  are  to  be  conducted  in  accordance 
with  the  rules  of  evidence  as  recognized  by  the  supreme 
court  of  the  state. 

There  are  certain  principles  laid  down  as  guide  to  the 
court,  and  presumably  for  the  protection  of  the  parties  in¬ 
volved.  According  to  Section  9  labor  is  entitled  to  a  “fair” 
wage  and  capital  to  a  “fair  return.”  This  may  or  may  not 
be  modified  by  Section  8,  which  stipulates  that  while  all 
conditions  must  be  “just  and  reasonable,”  they  must  be  such 
as  to  enable  the  industries  in  question  “to  continue  with  rea¬ 
sonable  efficiency  to  produce  or  transport  their  products  or 
continue  their  operations  and  thus  to  promote  the  general 
welfare.”  Either  party  may  appeal  any  decision  to  the  su- 
preme  court. 

No  worker  may  be  discharged  on  account  of  any  testi¬ 
mony  he  has  given  before  the  court,  and  no  employer  is  to 
be  subject  to  the  bo3^cott  or  any  other  discrimination  on 
account  of  any  act  performed  in  accordance  with  the  terms 
of  the  law. 

Section  14  of  the  law  has  some  very  peculiar  provisions. 
It  sets  forth  that  any  union  that  will  incorporate  shall  be 
recognized  by  the.  court  of  industrial  relations  as  a  “legal 
entity,”  and  may  appear  before  the  court  “through  and  by 
its  proper  officers.”  Unions,  whether  incorporated  or  not, 
have  the  right  to  bargain  collectively,  but  if  the  individual 
members  of  an  unincorporated  union  wish  to  avail  them¬ 
selves  of  this  right,  they  must,  each  one  of  them,  designate 
in  writing  some  person,  officer  of  the  union  or  otherwise,  as 
their  spokesman. 

This  section  is  open  to  the  inference  that  an  unincorpor¬ 
ated  union  would  not  have  a  right  to  appear  before  the 
court.  It  also  raises  the  question  of  the  right  of  such  a 
union  to  engage  in  collective  bargaining  if  every  member 
did  not  sign  a  paper  designating  a  spokesman.  However, 
it  appears  from  Section  9  that  the  right  of  collective  bar¬ 
gaining  may  after  all  be  an  unimportant  right.  The  court 
of  industrial  relations  has  final  authority  over  agreements 
independently  made,  and  may  modify  them  if  it  does  not  find 
them  “fair,  just  and  reasonable.” 

One  hesitates  to  criticise  a  project  so  joyously  entered 
upon  as  this  Kansas  enterprise  has  been,  or  one  in  which 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


179 


there  is  so  much  confident  trust,  with  respect  to  its  power 
to  remedy  evil.  But  it  is  being  offered  as  a  cure  for  indus¬ 
trial  ills.  Communities  a  thousand  miles  away  from  Kan¬ 
sas,  and  with  more  at  stake,  are  being  told,  with  all  the 
assurance  of  six  weeks’  experience,  that  by  such  means  not 
only  industrial  quiet,  but  industrial  justice  is  to  be  had.  The 
hazards  are  too  great  not  to  examine  the  molars  of  this 
particular  gift  horse. 

The  first  noteworthy  fact  is  that  there  are  no  particular 
qualifications  mentioned  in  the  law  that  the  judges  of  the 
court  of  industrial  relations  must  possess.  That  is  a  detail, 
but  it  is  a  rather  important  detail.  Under  one  governor  the 
judges  might  all  be  employers,  under  another  they  might 
be  labor  leaders,  and  under  a  third,  men  wholly  ignorant 
of  industry  or  its  problems. 

Limited  as  the  court  is  by  rules  of  evidence,  a  common 
sense  inquiry  seems  to  be  impossible.  Under  the  rules  of 
evidence  a  witness  is  not  permitted  to  give  hearsay  testi¬ 
mony.  While  this  is  an  important  restriction  for  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  a  man  accused  of  crime,  it  will  not  assist,  in  un¬ 
derstanding  the  details  of  a  complicated  industrial  situation. 
It  is  very  difficult  to  see  how  the  rules  of  evidence  could 
be  applied  to  such  an  investigation  as  the  court  must  carry 
on,  but  if  they  were  so  applied  it  is  obvious  that  the  investi¬ 
gation  would  be  restricted,  legalistic  and  largely  futile. 

The  law  sets  no  time  within  which  the  court  is  to  make 
its  finding,  nor  is  the  period  within  which  the  award  is  to 
run  limited.  The  only  way,  therefore,  by  which  a  revision 
of  the  award  within  a  reasonable  length  of  time  could  be 
forced  would  apparently  be  through  the  staging  of  a  new 
controversy  in  order  that  the  court  might  again  be  brought 
into  the  situation  and  be  obliged  to  make  a  new  award.  The 
law,  therefore,  may  serve  to  make  inevitable  that  very  unrest 
that  it  is  designed  to  cure. 

The  section  requiring  an  award  to  be  retroactive  is  ab¬ 
surd  and  impracticable  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  employes 
paying  back  to  their  employer  the  excess  of  wages  received 
in  the  case  of  an  award  depressing  their  wages.  There  is 
no  likelihood  that  the  previous  wage  paid  would  be  in  gen¬ 
eral  high  enough  to  allow  the  accumulation  of  the  excess 
either  in  the  form  of  savings  or  of  property.  In  other  words, 


i8o 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


the  money  would  have  been  spent.  The  collection  of  these 
sums  by  the  employer  would  be  highly  improbable.  How¬ 
ever,  the  existence  of  this  provision  in  the  law  will  prob¬ 
ably  be  the  source  of  a  great  deal  of  trouble.  It  could  un¬ 
doubtedly  be  used  in  the  form  of  persecution,  whether  its 
use  for  any  other  purpose  would  be  impracticable  or  not. 

The  protection  the  bill  seems  to  throw  about  the  work¬ 
ers  is  of  very  doubtful  value.  In  asserting  that  the  wage 
must  be  just  and  reasonable  the  bill  does  no  more  than  re¬ 
iterate  what  the  most  reactionary  member  of  the  community 
would  admit.  There  are  no  standards  as  a  basis  for  deter¬ 
mining  justice  and  reasonableness  in  the  matter  of  wages. 
It  is  certain  that  the  judgment  of  a  court  on  this  question 
would  be  an  extremely  conservative  judgment. 

There  is  an  assumed  protection  in  the  provision  that  a 
workman  cannot  be  discharged  on  account  of  his  testimony 
before  the  court.  It  is  well  known  that  laws  prohibiting 
the  right  to  discharge  because  a  man  is  a  member  of  a  union 
have  been  held  unconstitutional  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  this 
provision  would  have  any  better  standing  in  court.  But 
even  if  it  did,  it  is  a  protection  that  amounts  to  very  little. 
The  important  thing  is  that  the  right  to  strike  is  taken  away, 
and  the  corresponding  right  of  the  employer  to  discharge 
whom  he  will  with  this  one  minor  exception  is  left  intact. 
The  employer  then  could  undermine  an  organization  by 
discharging  its  leaders,  by  discharging  every  independently 
minded  employe  and  have  the  full  protection  of  the  court 
of  industrial  relations  in  so  doing.  He  could  by  this  action 
so  intimidate  his  employes  that  they  would  not  appeal  to 
the  court  for  protection  against  low  wages  and  long  hours, 
nor  testify  against  their  employer  if  someone  else  made  the 
appeal  for  them. 

These  are  some  of  the  defects  of  the  Kansas  law.  To 
point  them  out,  however,  is  not  sufficient.  It  does  not  bring 
us  to  the  heart  of  the  matter.  The  law  is  at  fault  not  in 
details,  but  as  a  whole.  Its  assumptions  are  unsound,  and 
its  purposes  run  counter  to  some  of  the  most  deeply  signi¬ 
ficant  purposes  of  modern  civilization. 

Compulsory  arbitration  is  an  attempt  to  forbid  by  law 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


181 


the  continuance  of  a  fundamental  and,  so  long  as  the  present 
economic  order  shall  stand,  an  essential  controversy.  Di¬ 
vergent  interests  exist  and  will  continue  to  exist,  and  neither 
courts  nor  laws  can  wipe  them  out  any  more  than  Canute 
could  command  the  tides.  To  forbid  a  group  the  right  to 
exercise  its  group  strength  in  the  matter  of  industrial  rela¬ 
tions  is  to  fasten  upon  industry  a  species  of  servitude.  The 
right  of  the  individual  to  quit,  which  is  not  taken  away  by 
the  Kansas  law,  is  of  small  significance  if  he  is  not  per¬ 
mitted  to  quit  in  such  a  \yay  as  to  make  his  act  a  matter  of 
concern  to  the  industry,  and  hence  to  make  it  a  factor  in 
the  determination  of  working  conditions.  He  is  thereby  de¬ 
nied  the  right  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  on  industry  to  se¬ 
cure  for  the  workers  in  it  better  conditions  of  employment. 
In  his  individual  freedom  to  quit  he  can  get  such  improved 
conditions  only  by  stumbling  on  them,  if  he  should  be  so 
fortunate.  He  may  not,  with  his  fellows,  make  such  condi¬ 
tions  for  himself. 

Nor  will  the  court  make  them  for  him,  in  any  degree  not 
sanctioned  by  the  general  conception  of  the  dominant  group 
at  the  time.  The  court  will  give  him  “fairness  and  justice” 
— as  understood  by  the  court.  The  judges  will  be  spokes¬ 
men  for  things  as  they  are.  They  will  be  appointed  to  their 
positions  by  the  powers  that  be.  They  will  represent  the 
accepted  moralities;  the}r  will  not  be  pioneers  in  the  search 
for  new  conceptions  of  justice. 

This  is  a  matter  of  very  great  importance  when  you  con¬ 
sider  the  true  nature  of  the  labor  movement.  Taken  as  a 
whole  it  is  a  part  of  a  profound  and  fundamental  struggle, 
ages  old — the  struggle  upward  of  the  masses  of  the  people. 
There  never  has  been  a  time  in  the  entire  history  of  that 
struggle  that  the  vanguard  of  the  movement  was  not  chal¬ 
lenging  accepted  ethical  standards.  There  never  has  been 
a  time  when  a  court,  its  personnel  made  up  of  representa¬ 
tive  members  of  the  dominant  group,  would  not  have  ruled 
against  these  challengers.  When  the  normal  status  for  labor 
was  slavery  a  court  of  industrial  relations,  honestly  dispens¬ 
ing  justice  according  to  its  lights,  would  have  ruled  that 
slaves  must  be  so  fed  and  housed  as  to  enable  them  to 
maintain  their  strength  and  their  numbers.  It  would  have 


1 82  COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 

frowned  upon  too  severe  beatings,  but  it  would  have  or¬ 
dered  amputation  of  the  ears,  and  branding,  for  those  slaves 
who  tried  to  stir  their  fellows  to  revolt. 

When  serfdom  was  the  natural  state,  the  court  would 
doubtless  have  granted  many  reforms  if  they  did  not  call 
in  question  the  justice  and  fairness  of  the  status  of  the  serf. 
It  was  only  one  hundred  and  fourteen  years  ago  that  a  judge 
in  Philadelphia,  presiding  at  a  trial  of  workmen  who  had 
combined  to  improve  their  conditions,  instructed  the  jury 
as  follows:  “A  combination  of  workmen  to  raise  their  wages 
may  be  considered  in  a  twofold  point  of  view:  one  is  to 
benefit  themselves,  .  .  .  the  other  is  to  injure  those  who 
do  not  join  the  society.  The  rule  of  law  condemns  both.” 
The  jury  found  the  defendants  “guilty  of  a  combination  to 
raise  wages.” 

Slavery,  serfdom,  conspiracy  doctrines — these  are,  in  the 
main,  things  of  the  past.  When  they  existed  they  were  the 
expression  of  the  conception  of  “justice  and  fairness”  of  the 
time.  Those  who  led  the  fight  for  a  different  conception 
were  enemies  of  the  social  order. 

Can  anyone  say  that  labor  has  now  arrived  at  the  state 
to  which  it  is  to  be  permanently  assigned?  There  are  still 
dissenters  as  there  always  have  been  who  propose  new 
marches  towards  a  better  day.  Some  of  these  plans  and 
proposals  will  find  expression  in  new  demands  on  employers. 
Whether  they  are  justified  by  the  facts  of  any  given  situa¬ 
tion  or  not,  is  it  not  reasonably  certain  that  an  industrial 
court  dispensing  justice  as  it  is  currently  and  generally  un¬ 
derstood  would  find  them  unjust  and  unreasonable?  And 
thus  the  court  becomes  of  necessity  a  barrier  to  experiments 
in  new  standards  of  justice. 

If  it  is  desirable  for  the  state  to  intervene  in  the  contro¬ 
versy  between  employer  and  employe  let  it  do  so  by  raising 
the  level  on  which  that  controversy  is  to  take  place.  Let 
there  be  a  point  below  which  there  is  to  be  no  argument. 
Thus  at  once  the  bitterest  forms  of  the  controversy  are 
made  unnecessary.  Above  that  point  economic  organization 
should  be  made  freer,  rather  than  less  free.  Voluntary  ar¬ 
bitration  should  be  encouraged,  and  the  parties  to  the  wage 
bargain  should  both  be  so  strongly  organized  as  to  make 
such  arbitration  an  agency  that  they  may  safely  use. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


183 

It  may  not  be  true  in  all  respects  that  that  government 
is  best  which  governs  least,  but  all  history,  ancient  and  mod¬ 
ern,  gives  evidence  of  the  folly  of  attempts  to  maintain  the 
status  quo  by  force  of  law. 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  THE  NEXT 
BATTLE  PRIZE;  WHY  IT  FAILED 

IN  NEW  ZEALAND1 

« 

Every  little  while  in  our  happy  land  some  one  has  a 
bright,  original  thought  about  strikes,  like  this: 

These  strikes  are  annojdng.  One  day  I  wanted  to  go 
down  town  and  all  the  subway  employes  were  out  on  strike, 
and  I  had  to  hire  a  taxi  or  walk.  Once  one  of  our  maids 
went  to  the  basement  door  to  get  the  milk  in  the  morning 
and  there  wasn’t  any  milk.  The  milk  wagon  drivers  were 
on  strike.  I  plan  to  go  next  month  to  California  and  I  am 
warned  that  I  had  better  not  go.  The  railroad  employes 
may  go  on  strike.  The  government  ought  to  protect  us 
against  these  troubles.  Ah  then!  Happy  thought!  Let  us 
have  a  law  forbidding  strikes.  Then  we  can  live  in  peace. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  this  style  of  original  thinking 
going  on  at  present,  and  likely  to  be  much  more.  By  a 
narrow  margin  we  managed  to  escape  in  the  Conference 
Railroad  bill  the  provisions  of  the  venerable  Cummins  and 
others  to  make  striking  a  crime,  but  there  is  indication  enough 
that  we  have  escaped  only  for  a  season.  If  the  elections 
this  year  go  the  way  they  ought  to  go  for  the  supremacy 
of  our  Better  Elements,  we  shall  have  anti-strike  bills  as 
thick  as  autumn  leaves,  with  every  chance  that  one  of  them 
will  get  through. 

That  is  our  admired  Congress  I  am  speaking  of.  Mean¬ 
time  the  original  thinking  group  has  been  busy  in  the  state 
legislatures.  Kansas  has  passed  and  is  trying  to  enforce  a 
law  that  seeks  to  eliminate  strikes  by  compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion.  Colorado  has  passed  one  that  seeks  to  eliminate  them 
by  making  them  impossible  to  success.  State  after  state  is 
preparing  to  imitate  one  or  the  other  of  these  examples. 


1  Charles  Edward  Russell.  Reconstruction.  2:150-2.  April,  1920. 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


184 

In  a  recent  speaking  tour  through  the  country  the  burden  of 
the  intellectual  converse  I  heard  in  smoking  compartment 
and  hotel  lobby  was  the  necessity  of  putting  an  end  to  these 
confounded  strikes  and  as  none  of  the  authorities  that  dis¬ 
cussed  the  matter  had  any  remedy  to  suggest  but  some  kind 
of  a  prohibitory  law,  I  think  we  are  in  for  a  fight  over  this 
strange  issue. 

But  it  will  not  be  a  fight  between  organized  labor  and 
the  employing  element.  It  will  look  at  first  like  that  kind 
of  a  fight,  but  in  reality  it  will  be  a  conflict  in  which  every 
American  that  is  careful  about  the  Constitution  and  the 
foundation  principles  of  democracy  will  have  just  as  much 
at  stake  as  organized  labor. 

For  this  reason,  that  if  this  idea  of  denying  to  men  the 
right  to  strike  and  of  compelling  them  to  work  when  they 
do  not  wish  to  work  receives  the  sanction  of  law  and  is  up¬ 
held  by  the  Supreme  Court,  we  enter  upon  an  entirely  new 
period  of  our  society  by  turning  back  to  conditions  and  ideas 
dominant  in  this  world  400  years  ago,  but  in  modern  civili¬ 
zation  held  to  be  impossible.  And  if  we  once  start  upon  this 
backward  road  the-e  will  be  more  rights  torn  up  than  the 
right  to  strike,  we  may  be  sure. 

Lay  aside  your  prejudices,  fellow  American,  take  an  im¬ 
partial  look  at  this  matter  and  see  if  I  am  not  right. 

All  of  these  measures,  plans  and  programs,  the  Cummins 
bill,  Esch  bill,  Kansas  arbitration  law,  Colorado  strike  law, 
blessed  dreamings  of  the  childlike  second  Industrial  Confer¬ 
ence,  and  all  the  rest,  proceed  upon  some  form  of  compulsory 
labor. 

The  Kansas  law  provides  that  industrial  disputes  must  be 
submitted  to  a  board  of  arbitration,  pending  which  there 
must  be  no  strike.  The  Colorado  law  provides  that  for  thirty 
days  after  giving  notice  there  must  be  no  strike.  The  In¬ 
dustrial  Conference  dream  is  of  a  national  arbitration  board, 
pending  whose  decision  there  must  be  no  strike.  The  Cum¬ 
mins  law  provided  under  drastic  penalties  that  for  all  rail¬ 
road  men  there  should  be  no  strike. 

But,  first,  if  by  any  means  you  compel  a  man  to  work 
against  his  will  you  make  of  him  a  slave.  If  you  make  him 
work  thirty  days  pending  arbitration  when  he  is  unwilling 
to  work,  you  make  him  a  slave  for  thirty  days.  If  you  com- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


185 


pel  him  to  work  for  thirty  minutes  against  his  will,  for  thirty 
minutes  you  make  him  a  slave. 

This  is  not  sentiment  nor  extravagance;  it  is  simple  fact. 
There  is  not  wit  enough  in  the  world  to  define  slavery  as 
anything  but  involuntary  servitude  nor  involuntary  servitude 
as  anything  but  slavery,  nor  undergoing  compulsory  labor 
while  waiting  for  arbitration  as  anything  but  involuntary 
servitude. 

As  soon  as  we  perceive  that  this  is  so  (and  it  most  as¬ 
suredly  is)  we  bump  straight  into  the  Constitution  of  the 

m 

United  States,  Amendment  XIII,  Paragraph  1. 

“Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment 
for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  exist 
within  the  United  States,  or  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction.” 

No  prohibition  could  be  more  direct  or  explicit.  We  also 
bump  just  as  directly  into  the  deliberate  verdict  of  enlight¬ 
ened  mankind. 

But,  second,  suppose  Omnipotent  Pettifogging  to  be  able 
to  find  some  way  to  say  that  black  is  white  and  thereby 
evade  the  plain  letter  of  the  Constitution,  how  would  you 
make  involuntary  servitude  practicable  in  this  instance? 

None  of  the  gifted  strike  suppressors  seem  to  have  con¬ 
sidered  this  little  matter,  but  I  should  think  it  might  be 
worth  a  moment’s  heed,  if  we  really  intend  to  plunge  into 
this  species  of  Carlovingian  civilization. 

If  you  forbid  men  to  strike  there  must  be  penalties  for 
violating  the  prohibition. 

These  can  consist  of  only  fine  and  imprisonment;  there 
is  nothing  else. 

How  will  you  enforce  these — upon  men  that  do  not  wish 
to  work? 

I  have  asked  this  question  many  times.  It  seems  to  be 
an  eminently  practical,  reasonable  and  necessary  question. 
I  have  never  succeeded  in  extracting  from  these  original 
thinkers  the  semblance  of  an  answer  to  it. 

There  is,  however,  in  the  experience  of  the  rest  of  the 
world  answer  enough  to  spare. 

Because — how  poor  are  they  that  do  not  read!  All  of 
this  has  been  threshed  out  elsewhere,  settled  and  hung  up 
in  the  muniment  rooms  of  ancient  history  as  a  thing  settled 
forever. 


1 86 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


If  now  the  United  States,  ignorant  of  what  other  peoples 
have  learned  by  experience,  is  to  start  upon  any  proposal 
of  compulsory  labor  or  compulsory  arbitration  it  will  seem 
to  the  world  either  incomprehensibly  ignorant  or  else  af¬ 
flicted  in  its  wits. 

It  will  be  Uncle  Sam  in  the  novel  role  of  Don  Quixote 
donning  mediaeval  armor  and  charging  at  windmills. 

No  Strikes  for  14  Years 

I  will  cite,  for  example,  the  experience  of  New  Zealand. 

Thirty  years  ago  New  Zealand  likewise  was  endowed 
with  persons  that  entertained  these  original  thoughts  about 
strikes.  Thirty  years  ago  they  likewise  started  out  to  abol¬ 
ish  the  annoying  strike  from  the  affairs  of  men.  And  thirty 
years  ago  they  not  only  proposed  but  induced  New  Zealand 
to  adopt  compulsory  arbitration  as  its  potent  remedy.  And 
here  is  what  happened: 

They  had  a  national  arbitration  court  or  board  to  which 
all  industrial  disputes  must  be  referred  if  a  conciliation 
board  had  not  been  able  to  settle  them. 

The  arbitration  board  consisted  of  three  members,  one 
elected  by  the  labor  unions,  one  by  the  employers’  associa¬ 
tion  and  one  chosen  by  the  government  from  the  judges  of 
courts  of  record. 

For  some  years  this  seemed  to  work  infallibly,  so  that 
Henry  Demorest  Lloyd  went  down  there  and* wrote  a  book 
in  praise  of  the  system.  He  called  it  “A  Country  Without 
Strikes,”  and  so  it  seemed  to  be.  I  added  my  own  humble 
pean  of  praise  because  when  I  went  to  New  Zealand  the 
first  time  there  had  not  been  a  strike  worth  the  name  in 
fourteen  years. 

Why  Strikes  Came  Back 

But  there  was  all  the  time  one  feature  of  the  situation 
that  neither  Lloyd  nor  I  nor  any  other  observer  noted,  and 
that  feature  so  unnoticed  was  the  inevitable  ruin  of  the 
whole  thing. 

Year  in  and  year  out  the  judge,  the  third  member  of  the 
arbitration  board,  and  in  practice  the  only  arbitrator,  cast 
his  deciding  vote  in  each  controversy  on  the  side  of  the 
labor  representative  and  against  the  claim  of  the  employers. 

With  such  assistance  wages  rose  steadily  in  New  Zea- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


187 


land,  work  hours  were  shortened  and  work  conditions  bet¬ 
tered. 

This  was  the  policy  of  the  government.  Dick  Seddon 
was  prime  minister  and  boss;  he  was  a  former  miner  and 
sturdy  on  labor’s  side. 

He  died  and  new  influences  came  into  power,  including 
gentlemen  with  titles  and  much  social  ambition. 

Soon  afterward  the  employers  quietly  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  manufacturing  in  New  Zealand  could  not  stand 
any  more  wage  increases.  The  limit  had  been  reached.  If 
wages  were  raised  another  notch  New  Zealand  would  have 
to  retire  from  manufacturing  in  competition  with  other  coun¬ 
tries.  Exports  would  cease,  imports  would  greatly  increase, 
and  the  banks — O  where  would  they  be?  An  echo  an¬ 
swered,  Where? 

Not  long  after  this  the  employes  of  the  packing  houses 
put  in  an  application  for  a  wage  increase. 

Meat  packing  and  preserving  was  one  of  the  growing  in¬ 
dustries  of  New  Zealand.  After  the  revelations  about  the 
Chicago  packing  houses,  Great  Britain  and  the  Continent 
turned  to  New  Zealand  and  Australia  for  meat  supplies. 
Great  were  the  hopes  for  this  industry  in  both  countries. 
But  the  New  Zealand  packers  said  they  could  not  go  on  if 
the  new  demand  of  the  workers  should  be  granted. 

The  case  came  to  a  hearing  before  the  arbitration  board 
and  this  time  the  judge  voted  with  the  representative  of  the 
employers  and  the  demand  was  refused. 

Then  the  workers  startled  the  government  and  the  coun¬ 
try  by  refusing  to  accept  the  award  and  going  out  on  strike. 

The  law  provided  that  awards  of  the  arbitration  board 
must  be  accepted  by  both  sides  on  penalty  of  heavy  fines. 
Compulsory  Arbitration. 

Up  to  that  time,  the  awards  having  been  generally  in 
favor  of  labor  and  only  prosecutions  for  failure  to  accept 
or  observe  the  award  had  been  of  employers.  Some  of  these 
had  been  soaked  heavily. 

When  the  workers  in  the  packing  houses  refused  to  ac¬ 
cept  the  board’s  finding  the  government  proceeded  in  like 
manner  to  enforce  the  law  upon  them. 

It  came  then  upon  the  astounding  fact  that  to  enforce 
compulsory  arbitration  upon  an  employer  and  to  enforce  it 
upon  an  employe  were  two  totally  different  propositions. 


i88 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


An  employer  had  a  bank  account,  he  had  a  business,  he 
had  tangible  assets.  When  he  was  arrested  and  brought  up 
in  court  and  duly  fined  the  government  had  something  to 
levy  on. 

When  the  packing  house  workers  had  been  brought  up 
in  court  and  duly  fined  the  government  could  find  nothing 
to  levy  upon  but  a  wash  boiler  and  a  skillet. 

Nothing  more  comical  was  ever  seen.  It  was  the  Gil¬ 
bert  and  Sullivan  of  legislation.  The  unfortunate  govern¬ 
ment  danced  about  like  Fantoccini,  wringing  its  poor  hands 
and  ordering  the  men  to  go  back  to  work,  and  the  men  just 
laughed  and  continued  their  strike. 

It  was  evident  that  the  law  as  it  stood  would  not  work. 
It  wasn’t  strong  enough,  said  the  Original  Thinkers,  for  the 
United  States  has  no  monopoly  of  this  order  of  mind;  what 
was  needed  was  imprisonment  to  bring  these  disorderly  fel¬ 
lows  to  their  senses. 

“Strengthened”  Law;  Failed  Again 

So  the  next  session  of  parliament  strengthened  the  law 
until  they  had  made  it  stiff  enough  to  suit  the  sternest  Tory 
in  the  land.  Workers  that  refused  to  accept  the  board’s 
award  or  to  keep  at  work  when  ordered  to  work  were  now 
subject  to  fine  or  imprisonment  or  both.  And  the  fines  were 
made  collectable  from  the  lawless  worker’s  household  effects 
or  anything  else  that  could  be  levied  upon.  If  he  didn’t  pay 
his  fine,  to  jail  with  him  and  meanwhile  sell  his  effects.  And 
we  guess  that  will  hold  them  for  a  while,  said  the  Original 
Thinkers,  pleased  with  themselves  and  the  outlook. 

Not  long  afterward  the  coal  miners  made  a  demand  for 
an  increased  wage.  The  arbitration  board  turned  it  down. 

The  miners  refused  to  accept  the  award  and  went  out  on 
strike. 

Then  the  majesty  of  the  law  descended  upon  them.  They 
were  hauled  into  court  and  heavily  fined,  as  the  law  directed. 

They  refused  to  pay  the  fines. 

Officers  now  went  to  the  homes  of  the  miners  to  seize 
household  effects — as  the  law  directed. 

They  siezed  washboilers,  skillets,  tables,  flatirons,  the 
kitchen  stove,  the  housewife’s  sewing  machine.  Seized  them 
and  carried  them  away. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


189 

Still  the  miners  refused  to  go  to  work  or  to  pay  their 
fines. 

Auctions  That  Didn’t  Work 

So  the  government  offered  for  sale  the  seized  household 
effects,  the  washboiler,  skillet,  sewing  machine  and  the  rest. 

A  crowd  of  miners’  friends  gathered  at  the  sale,  which 
was  by  lots,  and  stood  about,  hands  in  pockets. 

The  auctioneer  bellowed  and  bleated.  Nobody  bid. 

“I’ll  give  a  shilling  (24  cents)  for  the  lot,”  says  one  gent 
with  his  hands  in  his  pockets.  In  vain  the  auctioneer  bel¬ 
lowed  and  bleated.  Nobody  raised  the  bid.  I  am  told  on 
good  authority  that  to  raise  that  bid  would  have  been  re¬ 
garded  as  not  conducive  to  health.  I  do  not  know.  Any 
way,  nobody  raised  it,  and  the  lot  went  for  24  cents. 

“Now,  then,”  says  the  purchaser  to  the  crowd,  “just  lay 
hold  and  hand  these  things  back  into  Sam’s  house,  will  you?” 

It  was  the  house  from  which  the  things  had  been  seized. 
In  an  hour  and  a  half  all  of  the  seized  goods  were  once  more 
in  the  places  from  which  they  had  been  taken,  washboilers, 
skillets,  stoves  and  sewing  machines,  at  an  expense  of  from 
12  to  24  cents  for  each  lot. 

At  this  the  country  burst  again  into  laughter.  Even  the 
Original  Thinkers,  who  in  the  providence  of  God  are  denied 
ordinarily  the  sense  of  humor,  could  see  that  the  government 
was  doddering  again. 

There  remained,  however,  the  blessed  remedy  of  the  jail 
sentence.  So  now  the  poor  old  government  began  to  fill  the 
jails  with  these  criminals  that  would  not  work  when  they 
were  told  to  work. 

About  that  time  it  occurred  to  someone  in  the  govern¬ 
ment  that  a  man  can’t  mine  coal  while  he  is  shut  up  in  jail. 
The  law  was  being  enforced  with  a  thoroughness  exhilarat¬ 
ing  to  behold.  Jail  sentences  had  been  handed  out,  just  as 
the  law  said,  and  more  were  preparing.  But  there  was  no 
coal  being  mined,  and  it  was  apparent  that  the  more  you 
filled  the  jails  with  the  miners  the  less  was  your  chance  of 
getting  coal. 

Coincident  with  this  remarkable  discovery  various  per¬ 
sons  in  different  parts  of  the  country  began  to  demand  that 
the  government  should  explain  the  difference  between  com- 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


190 

pulsory  labor  and  slavery  and  to  refer  significantly  to  the 
old  song  that  says  Britons  never,  never  will  be  slaves,  or 
something  to  that  effect. 

The  government  took  but  a  short  time  to  ponder  this 
problem.  With  all  convenient  haste  it  arranged  to  save  as 
much  of  its  face  as  still  remained  to  it,  and  then  it  aban¬ 
doned  compulsory  arbitration. 

By  the  stone  wall  route  to  knowledge  it  had  arrived  at 
the  fact  familiar  to  even  the  kindergarten  of  economics  that 
in  free  and  civilized  nations  you  cannot  compel  men  to  work 
when  they  do  not  wish  to  work. 

Also  that  without  such  compulsion  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  Compulsory  Arbitration  and  cannot  be. 

The  old  Compulsory  Arbitration  act  was  not  repealed,  but 
merely  thrown  into  the  discard.  In  its  place  was  adopted 
a  system  of  voluntary  arbitration.  Each  side  chose  an  arbi¬ 
trator,  these  two  agreed  upon  a  third,  but  no  one  again  in¬ 
dulged  in  the  madman’s  dream  that  the  findings  of  these  or 
any  others  could  be  enforced  by  law. 

It  seems  now  that  by  the  good  old  route  to  the  stone 
wall  instead  of  the  findings  of  all  human  experience  we  are 
to  be  led  to  the  same  result. 

Right  to  Strike  Fundamental 

For  I  am  not  afraid  that  we  shall  ever  really  have  Com¬ 
pulsory  Arbitration  in  this  country  any  more  than  we  are 
likely  to  have  astrology  substituted  for  navigation  or  the 
Book  of  Dreams  for  geometry.  But  what  is  to  be  feared  is 
a  legal  declaration  against  the  right  to  strike  or  some  law 
to  limit,  qualify  or  restrict  it. 

Any  such  legislation  would  be  a  huge  step  backward  and 
have  the  most  pernicious  effect  upon  all  movement  for  bet¬ 
ter  conditions,  and  in  this  generation  all  hopes  for  a  wider 
and  truer  democracy. 

Because  the  right  to  strike  is  absolutely  fundamental.  It 
is  the  most  primitive  and  obvious  of  all  rights.  It  is  the  first 
right  that  man  secured  when  he  began  to  break  out  of  the 
dungeon  of  serfdom.  It  is  the  beginning  and  primer  of  all 
other  rights.  If  man  has  not  the  right  to  refrain  from  work 
when  he  wishes  not  to  work  he  has  no  rights  at  all.  If  the 
reactionaries  can  break  down  that  right  they  can  break 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


191 

down  all  the  rest.  If  such  a  right  can  be  taken  away,  free¬ 
dom  of  the  press,  freedom  of  speech,  of  assembly,  of  pe¬ 
tition,  and  of  the  ballot  can  very  easily  be  denied.  Those 
that  are  familiar  with  the  fight  that  has  been  necessary  to 
keep  this  Congress  from  destroying  those  rights  will  not  tol¬ 
erate  any  scheme  that  will  not  only  leave  those  rights  without 
a  defense,  but  make  their  repeal  eminently  logical  and  proper. 

Labor’s  Last  Chance 

It  is  this  issue  that  with  the  ownership  of  the  nation’s 
highways  stands  out  in  the  coming  election.  If  the  workers 
of  this  country  were  united,  or  had  any  habit  of  voting  for 
themselves  instead  of  voting  for  their  exploiters  we  should 
never  have  heard  a  question  of  the  right  to  strike.  It  is 
because  statesmanship  at  Washington  is  convinced  labor  will 
never  wake  up  that  it  dares  to  put  over  such  arrant  knaver¬ 
ies  as  were  contained  in  the  railroad  bills.  Exploitation  in 
this  country  persists  through  the  divisions  of  the  exploited 
and  for  no  other  reason. 

It  is  so  with  the  wage  workers. 

So,  and  still  worse.  This  year  will  be  about  the  last  call 
of  grace  to  American  labor.  If  it  will  not  get  together  to 
defend  itself  this  year  it  will  have  served  notice  upon  all  its 
enemies  that  it  is  nothing  but  a  mass  of  putty  to  be  shaped 
as  exploitation  may  please. 

The  primaries  are  before  the  workers  and  the  believers 
in  human  rights  and  in  essential  democracy.  Through  the 
primaries  we  have  in  most  states  practical^  unlimited  power 
If  the  next  Congress  contains  a  majority  of  men  ready  to 
make  further  onslaughts  upon  the  rights  of  labor  and  the 
fundamental  lav/,  the  fault  will  be  ours,  but  the  victory  will 
be  Reaction’s,  and  with  such  a  victory  God  only  knows  where 
it  will  stop. 


COMPULSION  DOES  NOT  INSURE  PEACE1 

Australia  and  New  Zealand  have  gone  farther  than  any 
other  countries  inhabited  by  English-speaking  men  in  testing 
socialistic  and  extremely  paternal  government.  They  have 


1  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer  (Editorial).  January  28,  1913. 


192 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


ventured  upon  experiments  which  have  no  parallel  in  the  civil¬ 
ized  world. 

Among  the  results  which  these  antipodean  nations — for  they 
are  virtually  independent  in  all  things  affecting  their  own  af¬ 
fairs — claim  to  have  achieved  is  the  abolition  of  strikes.  They 
have  boasted  that  their  compulsory  arbitration  laws  have  put 
an  end  to  strikes  and  lockouts  and  insured  industrial  peace. 

Recent  facts  do  not  sustain  the  claim  that  such  gains  have 
been  made.  In  twelve  months  Australia  has  had  eighty-eight 
strikes,  notwithstanding  the  drastic  state  and  federal  compul¬ 
sory  arbitration  laws.  Australia  has  less  than  5,000,000  in¬ 
habitants,  or  about  5  per  cent  of  the  population  of  the  United 
States.  The  country  is  of  immense  extent  and  the  natural  con¬ 
ditions,  with  manufactures  at  a  minimum  and  agriculture  and 
sheep  raising  of  outstanding  importance,  are  such  that  labor 
troubles  ought  to  be  few  and  of  little  moment.  Yet  here  is 
the  equivalent,  in  proportion  to  the  population,  of  about  1,760 
strikes  in  the  United  States. 

It  is  not  strange,  in  the  face  of  such  facts,  that  the  author 
of  the  federal  arbitration  act  said,  not  long  ago,  that  never  had 
the  labor  troubles  of  the  country  given  thoughtful  citizens  more 
concern.  The  commonwealth  had  instituted  the  boldest  and 
most  advanced  experiments  with  the  object  of  preventing 
strikes  and  lockouts  but  there  was  an  unparalleled  condition  of 
turmoil  and  unrest.  Mr.  Deakin  added  that,  “We  appear  to 
have  been  practically  successful  in  preventing  employers  from 
locking  out  their  men,  but  we  seem  to  have  been  unsuccess¬ 
ful,  in  most  instances,  in  dealing  with  strikes.” 

Here  is  a  picture  of  the  results  of  compulsion  in  labor  dis¬ 
putes  which  is  of  a  piece  with  the  recent  news  from  New  Zea¬ 
land  that  an  officer  and  a  citizen  were  killed  and  other  persons 
seriously  wounded,  some  of  them  mortally,  in  a  strike  riot  at 
Waihi.  Revolvers  were  freely  used  and  the  authorities  were 
unable  to  stop  the  fighting  between  the  strikers  and  the  non¬ 
union  men  until  much  bloodshed  had  taken  place.  And  all  this 
in  a  country  blessed  with  fertile  soil  and  a  beautiful  climate 
where  about  1,000,000  persons  occupy  for  their  own  use  and 
profit  almost  as  great  an  area  as  that  of  Italy  or  two  and  one- 
half  times  the  space  Ohio  fills  on  the  map. 

These  conditions  in  countries  where  compulsory  arbitration 
has  been  tried  to  the  fullest  extent  and  in  the  most  radical 
form  make  a  sorry  contrast  with  the  virtual  freedom  of  Ca- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


193 


nada,  with  a  much  larger  population  than  that  of  Australia 
and  New  Zealand  combined,  from  serious  labor  troubles.  In 
the  Dominion  there  is  no  forced  arbitration,  but  the  govern¬ 
ment  does  compel  both  sides  to  make  their  position  and  argu¬ 
ments  known  before  a  strike  or  a  lockout.  Publicity  is  obliga¬ 
tory  and  given  official  weight  and  sanction.  The  rest  is  left 
to  public  sentiment,  and  the  weight  of  the  popular  verdict  is 
almost  always  sufficient. 

The  plain  truth  is  that  men  do  not  like  to  be  driven.  They 
rebel  at  force.  The  most  powerful  labor  organizations  in  this 
country  have  steadily  opposed  arbitration  made  compulsory  by 
law.  They  demand  freedom  of  action  just  as  naturally  as  em¬ 
ployers  do.  Publicity  and  public  opinion  get  results  impossible 
from  the  Australian  method. 

• 

THE  ANTI-STRIKE  BILL1 

The  right  to  strike  is  not  one  that  is  peculiar  to  industrial 
labor  alone — it  is  as  universal  as  human  life  itself. 

Supposing  that  the  packers  run  down  the  price  of  hogs  and 
live  stock  to  a  point  where  the  farmers’  profits  are  such  that 
he  cannot  afford  to  raise  them  and  he  finds  the  growing  of 
grain  more  profitable — what  does  he  do?  He  reduces  his  pro¬ 
duction  of  live  stock  and  increases  his  grain  production.  In 
other  words,  he  goes  on  a  strike  as  a  live  stock  producer,  pro¬ 
vided  the  slump  continues  long  enough.  And  no  matter  how 
much  the  public  needs  hogs  and  beef,  we  would  not  expect 
the  farmer  to  be  so  unselfish  and  philanthropic  that  he  would 
continue  to  raise  cattle  and  hogs  at  a  loss  to  enrich  the  packers, 
*  even  though  the  public  suffered.  Just  recently  the  cotton 
growers  of  the  South  formed  a  large  organization  with  millions 
of  dollars  of  capital  to  build  cotton  warehouses  in  which  to 
store  their  product  and  hold  it  for  higher  prices,  and,  no  mat¬ 
ter  how  much  the  public  may  need  cotton,  they  will  hold  it 
for  what  they  think  they  show  good  sense  in  so  doing,  but 
they  have  prepared  to  go  on  a  strike — to  hold  their  product  off 
the  market  until  the  market  comes  to  their  terms.  The  Farm¬ 
ers’  Milk  Producers  association  in  Illinois  has  just  been  tried 
and  acquitted  for  going  on  a  strike.  They  refused  to  furnish 

1  Extract  from  address  of  F.  C.  Canfield,  President  of  the  Iowa  State 
Federation  of  Labor.  Iowa  Unionist.  January  15,  1920. 


194 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


milk  to  the  distributors  excepting  at  the  price  which  the  farmer 
producers  fixed.  They  let  their  milk  spoil  first — and  I  can’t 
blame  them.  Yet  they  are  pilloried  as  the  starvers  of  suckling 
babes,  because  they  would  not  furnish  their  product  excepting 
at  the  price  which  they  set  through  their  collective  bargaining 
agencies. 

Capital  also  goes  on  a  strike  at  times.  When  money  is  in 
great  demand,  the  banks  increase  their  rates  of  interest,  which 
merely  means  that  capital  has  struck  for  higher  wages,  and 
neither  you  nor  I  can  get  money,  no  matter  how  good  our  se¬ 
curity,  unless  we  pay  the  rates  demanded.  Supposing  the  steel 
corporation  should  find  it  immensely  more  profitable  to  use  all 
its  output  for  steel  rails  for  Europe  instead  of  for  steel  build¬ 
ing  materials  for  this  country.  It  would  go  on  a  strike  so  far 
as  the  manufacture  of  construction  materials  for  the  United 
States  is  concerned,  and  no  matter  how  badly  the  public  might 
be  in  need  of  steel  frame  work  for  new  buildings,  it  would 
go  hang  until  it  was  willing  to  match  the  profit  which  Europe 
would  pay  for  the  steel  rails.  Now,  unfortunately  for  the  in¬ 
dustrial  laborer,  he  is  not  able,  as  a  farmer  and  the  manu¬ 
facturer  are,  to  direct  his  efforts  along  other  lines  when  one 
line  becomes  unremunerative.  He  has  but  one  line  and  that 
is  his  labor  in  the  industry  in  which  he  is  skilled.  The  farmer 
may  turn  from  live  stock  raising  to  grain  growing,  and  the 
steel  corporation  from  building  materials  to  steel  rails,  but  the 
coal  miner,  the  steel  worker,  is  only  that  and  nothing  else. 
When  he  strikes,  his  work  ceases  altogether. 

I  will  concede  that  the  strike  is  a  dangerous  weapon — that 
it  has  been  improperly  employed  at  times — that  it  should  not 
be  used  excepting  as  a  last  resort — but,  conceding  all  these, 
I  still  maintain  that  it  is  labor’s  only  weapon  of  defense,  and 
when  you  take  it  away  arbitrarily,  you  have  disarmed  one  party 
to  a  controversy  and  have  left  him  at  the  mercy  of  a  fully 
armed  adversary,  whose  attitude  has  never  been  characterized 
by  an  over-abundant  love  of  mercy  or  justice. 

We  hear  much  these  days  of  the  rights  of  the  public  being 
paramount  to  that  of  any  one  class — and  that  is  true.  But  the 
public  is  only  made  up  of  various  classes  and  the  right  to  strike 
is  a  common  one  to  all  classes — to  the  farmers,  to  capital — 
to  everyone,  as  I  have  shown,  although  we  call  it  by  different 
names.  It  is  a  fundamental  human  right  that  we  should  be 
very  slow  to  tamper  with  or  to  deny  to  any  one-  class  while 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


195 


permitting  it  to  other  classes,  no  matter  how  it  may  be  dis¬ 
guised.  But,  conceding  that  the  public’s  right  to  coal,  to  trans¬ 
portation,  to  any  of  the  other  necessities  of  life  and  business 
is  paramount,  there  is  an  equally  great  obligation  the  other 
way,  and  I  think  that  logically  it  comes  before  the  public’s 
obligation  to  see  that  the  laboring  men  in  every  essential  in¬ 
dustry  are  protected  in  their  right  to  a  fair  wage,  to  a  reason¬ 
able  standard  of  living,  to  proper  working  conditions.  If  the 
public  will  see  to  that,  it  will  not  need  to  concern  itself  in 
denying  labor  the  right  to  strike,  for  strikes  are  but  a  symptom, 
not  the  disease,  and  it  is  better  to  treat  the  disease  than  to 
seek  to  relieve  merely  the  symptom.  Give  the  workingmen  of 
the  United  States  justice  and  fair  dealing,  and  they  will  not 
resort  to  the  strike.  The  working  man  suffers  with  everyone 
else  when  he  strikes — in  fact,  be  suffers  as  a  rule  more  than 
anyone  else.  He  strikes  because  he  feels  he  is  forced  to  do  so 
in  self-protection.  Let  society  protect  him,  and  it  will  have  re¬ 
moved  the  danger  of  strikes  by  removing  their  cause. 

Many  plans  for  dealing  with  strikes  through  compulsory 
arbitration  are  being  suggested,  such  as  that  proposed  by 
Senator  Cummins,  and  I  would  be  guilty  of  cowardly  evasion 
if  I  did  not  say  frankly  that  labor  has  been  very  suspicious 
of  compulsory  arbitration.  This  is  due  to  two  reasons.  One 
is  the  bitter  experience  which  labor  has  had  with  arbitration 
boards  in  the  past.  It  has  often  felt  that  the  power  and  in¬ 
fluence  of  capital  have  enabled  it  to  pack  arbitration  boards,  to 
influence  unduly  decisions  rendered,  and  to  grant  labor  less 
than  it  was  justly  entitled  to.  But  there  is  more  fundamental 
ground  than  that  why  labor  views  with  some  alarm  and  sus¬ 
picion  the  proposals  for  compulsory  arbitration  and  that  is  be¬ 
cause  in  dealing  with  labor  you  are  dealing  with  a  human  and 
not  a  property  right.  Two  men  may  get  into  a  dispute  over 
the  ownership  of  a  piece  of  property  and  arbitrate  their  dif¬ 
ferences  or  go  to  court  for  a  settlement.  But  labor  is  not  a 
commodity.  It  is  human  toil,  and  strength  and  life.  Its  rights 
transcend  mere  property  rights.  A  man  may  arbitrate  a  dis¬ 
pute  over  a  boundary  line,  but  he  will  not  arbitrate  the  years 
he  may  be  permitted  to  live.  Furthermore,  labor  feels  that  in 
the  past  it  has  been  robbed  of  its  share  in  the  wealth  which 
it  has  created  by  the  sweat  of  its  brow,  and  to  ask  it  to  arbi¬ 
trate  what  it  regards  as  its  just  claim  to  the  reward  of  indus¬ 
try  would  be  like  asking  the  man  who  captures  the  burglar 


1 96 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


in  his  house  to  arbitrate  with  the  thief  over  how  much  of  the 
stolen  silverware  he  shall  part  with.  So  I  say  that  labor  will 
be  slow  to  accept  compulsory  arbitration  out  of  its  bitter  ex¬ 
perience  of  the  past  and  out  of  its  belief  that  no  man  and  no 
set  of  men  is  good  enough  or  wise  enough  to  have  autocratic 
and  compulsory  power  over  the  time,  the  efforts  and  the  very 
lives  of  other  men. 

There  is  just  one  other  point  I  wish  to  make,  and  that  is 
to  refer  to  the  alternative  which  you  force  upon  labor  when 
you  deny  it  the  age-old  right  to  strike  openly  and  legally.  The 
only  choice  left  is  for  labor  to  “strike  on  the  job”  or  to  in¬ 
dulge  in  what  we  call  “sabotage.” 

Let  me  emphasize  the  danger  of  sabotage.  Organized  labor 
is  noted  for  its  superior  degree  of  intelligence,  for  its  superior 
and  high  order  of  mental  attainment;  this  intelligence  and  high 
mental  attainment  is  being  used  today  in*  the  interest  of  in¬ 
creased  production  for  the  betterment  of  society. 

If  labor,  skilled  mechanics  are  denied  the  right  to  enforce  its 
just  demands  by  the  use  of  their  strike  weapon,  what  assurance 
is  there  that  that  high  degree  of  intelligence  will  not  be  used 
unlawfully  in  direct  insiduous  sabotage. 

There  is  great  danger  in  attempting  to  force  labor  to  work, 
by  drastic  legislation.  We  cannot  by  legislative  power  force 
labor  to  use  its  high  intelligence  to  increase  production  either 
for  profit  of  individuals  or  society  as  a  whole  and  deny  it  its 
right  to  enforce  a  fair  return  for  its  effort. 

Organized  labor  today  is  the  chief  bulwark  against  red 
radicalism  in  the  United  States,  and  whenever  you  do  some¬ 
thing  that  weakens  the  power  of  the  labor  leader,  who  de¬ 
sires  evolution  in  place  of  revolution,  you  are  simply  weakening 
that  defense — you  are  lending  aid  and  comfort  to  the  common 
enemy,  which,  as  I  have  said,  is  the  enemy  of  organized  labor 
no  less  than  the  enemy  of  the  government.  But  if  you  deny 
to  organized  labor  its  ancient  and  natural  right  to  strike  openly, 
you  encourage  the  radical  who  preaches  sabotage.  If  labor 
cannot  strike  as  free  human  beings  strike — openly,  manfully, 
legally — it  will  strike  in  the  more  insidious  way  that  will 
cripple  industry  even  more  effectually  than  the  open  strike, 
and  in  a  way  which  it  is  infinitely  harder  to  meet. 

Today,  when  the  world  is  calling  for  increased  production, 
when  we  need  “speeding  up”  in  every  line  of  industry,  let  us 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


197 


not  encourage  the  subtle  weapon  of  the  I.  W.  W.,  who  loafs  on 
the  job,  destroys  machines  and  cripples  industry  in  the  dark. 

So  I  plead  with  you  today  that  we  shall  direct  our  atten¬ 
tion  towards  correcting  injuries,  towards  providing  the  square 
deal  for  industrial  labor,  as  well  as  for  capital,  which  is  all  or¬ 
ganized  labor  is  asking.  If  you  will  do  this,  we  will  not  need 
to  concern  ourselves  with  the  question  of  forbidding  strikes, 
for  then  the  laborers’  and  the  employers’  interest  will  be  iden¬ 
tical.  There  would  have  been  no  steel  strike,  no  coal  strike, 
if  there  had  not  been  injustice  and  intolerable  working  and 
living  conditions.  Labor  does  owe  society  the  right  to  live  in 
comfort,  but  it  is  a  mutual  obligation.  The  interests  of  labor 
and  of  society  at  large  are  identical.  The  one  can  not  pros¬ 
per  at  the  expense  of  the  other.  Strikes  mean  wasted  effort, 
dissipated  energy  for  society?  and  they  mean  all  this  and  more 
for  the  working  man  who  strikes.  I  hope  to  live  to  see  the  day 
when  strikes  have  become  ancient  history,  but  we  will  not  and 
should  not  reach  that  day  by  making  them  illegal,  but  by  mak¬ 
ing  them  unnecessary.  Let  us  not  get  the  cart  before  the  horse, 
nor  treat  the  symptom  instead  of  the  disease. 

BRIEF  EXCERPTS 

Compulsory  Arbitration  means,  in  fact,  the  fixing  of  wages 
by  law. — Webb.  Industrial  Democracy,  p.  245. 

Compulsory  Arbitration  is  as  impossible  as  it  is  un¬ 
desirable. — William  J.  Bryan,  Commoner.  20 :3  January,  1920. 

Since  1886,  at  least,  strikes  have  not  been  increasing  as 
fast  as  the  population  of  the  country. — Adams  and  Sumner. 
Labor  Problems,  8th  edition,  p.  179. 

The  [New  Zealand  Arbitration]  Court,  while  nominally 
a  judicial  body,  in  reality  legislates  upon  terms  of  employ¬ 
ment  throughout  the  whole  colony. — Adams  and  Sumner. 
Labor  Problems,  p.  321. 

A  few  years  ago  opinion  appeared  to  be  setting  toward  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration  as  the  readiest  means  of  avoiding  the  tre¬ 
mendous  loss  and  inconvenience  arising  from  strikes ;  but  of 
late  we  seem  to  be  moving  away  from  it  rather  than  toward  it. 
Chancellor  Lloyd-George  told  the  London  Bankers’  Association 


198 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


the  other  day  that  labor  was  strongly  opposed  to  it,  and  that 
he  had  been  much  impressed  by  the  “suspicious  attitude”  of 
workmen  toward  interference  by  the  state. — Saturday  Evening 
Post.  June  6,  1912. 

There  are  some  who  have  urged  the  commission  to  rec¬ 
ommend  the  adoption  of  compulsory  arbitration,  but  we  can¬ 
not  see  our  way  to  recommend  any  such  drastic  measure. 
We  do  not  believe  that  in  the  United  States  such  a  system 
would  meet  with  general  approval  or  with  success.  Apart 
from  the  apparent  lack  of  constitutional  power  to  enact  laws 
providing  for  compulsory  arbitration,  our  industries  are  too 
vast  and  too  complicated  for  the  practical  application  of 
such  a  system. — Report  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Com¬ 
mission,  1902. 

The  industrial  relations  law  of  Kansas,  said  Mr.  Gompers, 
has  taken  from  the  workers  their  right  of  membership  in 
themselves.  They  must  work  by  order  of  the  law,  by  order 
of  the  court  under  penalty  of  fine  and  imprisonment.  If 
strikes  conducted  by  well  regulated  organizations  like  the 
organized  labor  movement,  are  to  be  outlawed,  then  China 
ought  to  stand  at  the  head  of  civilization.  You  will  find  them 
in  the  countries  where  discontent  and  injustice  prevail;  the 
manifestations  will  be  deeper  and  more  disastrous  actions  than 
strike. — Chicago  Tribune,  March  21,  1920. 

I  know  of  only  one  system  of  handling  labor  disputes 
through  government  agencies  that  has  operated  successfully, 
and  that  is  the  method  used  by  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Labor, 
through  what  is  known  as  the  Conciliation  Division  over  which 
the  Seceretary  of  Labor  presides.  Its  function  is  to  bring  the 
two  sides  together  and  to  aid  them  in  adjusting  their  differences 
by  conciliation  and  mediation  first,  and,  finally,  by  suggestions 
leading  towards  arbitration  in  which  the  government,  however, 
does  not  participate.  That  system  operates  successfully. — Vic¬ 
tor  A.  OJander.  Seamen’s  Journal.  33:2.  April  21,  1920. 

The  sentiment  of  both  employers  and  employees  in  the 
United  States  is  almost  universally  opposed  to  compulsory  ar¬ 
bitration  as  a  general  method  of  settling  labor  disputes.  They 
deprecate  it  on  the  ground  that  it  would  involve  the  ultimate 
reference  of  even  the  most  important  matters,  the  general  terms 
of  the  labor  contract,  to  persons  or  authorities  entirely  out- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


199 


side  the  trade  concerned,  and  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  en¬ 
force  the  decisions  of  arbitrators  without  most  rigorous 
measures.  Both  of  these  difficulties  have  already  been  discussed 
under  other  heads. — Report  of  the  Industrial  Commission  1901. 
vol.  19,  p.  861. 

Strikes  among  certain  classes  of  employees  are,  indeed, 
never  justifiable,  and  among  these  classes  are  undeniably 
our  transportation  employees.  But  we  can  not,  merely  be¬ 
cause  we  must  have  uninterrupted  transportation,  chain  these 
men  to  their  posts  as  the  Romans  chained  their  galley  slaves 
to  the  oars.  The  duty  of  refraining  to  strike  against  the 
public,  which  in  a  democracy  is  rebellion  against  the  gov¬ 
ernment  itself,  implies  a  corresponding  obligation  upon  the 
public,  through  its  representatives,  to  provide  the  employees 
in  the  public  utilities  with  the  best  working  conditions  and 
the  fairest  wages. — Senator  David  I.  Walsh.  Congressional 
Record,  December  18,  1919. 

It  is  not  easy  to  show  that  compulsory  arbitration  has 
greatly  benefited  the  workers  of  the  Dominion  [New  Zea¬ 
land].  Sweating  has  been  abolished,  but  it  is  a  question 
whether  it  would  not  have  disappeared  in  the  years  of  pros¬ 
perity  without  the  help  of  the  Arbitration  Court.  Strikes 
have  been  prevented,  but  New  Zealand  never  suffered  much 
from  strikes,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  workers  might  have 
gained  as  much,  or  more,  by  dealing  directly  with  their  em¬ 
ployers  as  by  the  mediation  of  the  court.  As  to  wages,  it  is 
generally  admitted  that  they  have  not  increased  more  than 
the  cost  of  living.— Le  Rossignol  and  Stewart.  State  Socialism 
in  New  Zealand,  p.  243. 

In  my  judgment,  we  certainly  have  no  right  to  compel  men, 
either  singly  or  collectively,  to  work  for  a  railroad  against  their 
will ;  and,  to  repeat  the  illustration  that  I  think  I  used  the  other 
day,  suppose  that  when  this  bill  passes  and  these  railroads  go 
back  to  their  owners  the  wages  are  reduced  25  per  cent,  and 
this  tribunal — which  is  the  Transportation  Board  in  this  bill, 
a  tribunal  which  in  all  probability  will  be  made  up  of  former 
railway  executives — approves  that  cut  of  25  per  cent.  Are  you 
going  to  put  2,000,000  men  in  jail  in  this  country  because  they 
collective^  agree  that  they  will  not  longer  remain  in  the  service 
of  the  carrier  at  that  wage?  Yet  that  is  exactly  the  situation 


200 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


that  may  well  arise  if  the  pending  provisions  of  the  bill  are 

enacted  into  law . — Senator  Irving  L.  Lenroot,  Congressional 
Record.  December  18,  1919. 

Compulsory  Arbitration  has  not  prevented  strikes  in  Aus¬ 
tralia.  While  it  has,  perhaps,  lessened  the  number  of  strikes 
among  the  smaller  unions,  there  is  still  the  fact  that  the  larger 
and  stronger  unions  have  over  and  over  again  refused  to  ac¬ 
cept  the  decisions  of  the  courts  when  they  did  not  suit  them. 
Where  the  courts  declared  their  strikes  illegal,  the  declara¬ 
tion  was  as  worthless  as  if  it  were  never  written.  And  because 
of  the  power  of  the  workers  at  the  ballot  box,  no  govern¬ 
ment  has  ever  seriously  attempted  to  enforce  the  anti-strike 
law.  Anyhow,  the  idea  of  enforcing  strike  penalties  is  repug¬ 
nant  to  the  Australian  character,  and  bitterly  resented.  Vic¬ 
timisation  in  any  shape  or  form  is  hotly  condemned  not  only 
by  the  workers  but  by  the  Australian  people  generally.— IF.  F. 
Ahearn.  Reconstruction.  2:24.  January,  1920. 

It  is  our  aim  to  avoid  strikes,  but  I  trust  that  the  day 
will  never  come  when  the  workers  of  our  country  will  have 
so  far  lost  their  manhood  and  independence  as  to  surrender 
their  right  to  strike  or  refuse  to  strike.  We  seek  to  prevent 
strikes,  but  we  realize  that  the  best  means  by  which  they 
can  be  averted  is  to  be  the  better  prepared  for  them.  We 
endeavor  to  prevent  strikes,  but  there  are  some  conditions 
far  worse  than  strikes,  and  among  them  is  a  demoralized, 
degraded  and  debased  manhood.  Lest  our  attitude  be  mis¬ 
construed,  we  emphatically,  and  without  ambiguity,  declare 
our  position.  The  right  to  quit  work  at  any  time,  and  for 
any  reason  sufficient  to  the  workman  himself,  is  the  concrete 
expression  of  individual  liberty. — Samuel  Gompers.  Address  be¬ 
fore  the  Arbitration  Conference ,  Chicago,  1900. 

The  promise  for  the  future  lies  in  the  rapid  spread  among 
both  employers  and  employees  of  the  idea  of  what  is  called 
in  general  terms  industrial  democracy,  or  in  specific  language 
the  shop  committee  plan.  The  fundamental  principle  of  this 
idea  is  that  the  wage-workers  shall  have,  through  the  elec¬ 
tion  of  delegates  or  committees,  some  voice  in  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  industry,  especially  as  regards  hours  and  conditions 
of  labor,  productve  efficiency,  and  profits.  If,  through  the 
practical  application  of  this  principle,  capital  and  labor  can 
be  converted  from  inimical  and  mutually  suspicious  antagon- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


201 


ists  into  partners  working  for  mutual  interests  and  with  mu¬ 
tual  confidence,  American  industry  may  enter  upon  a  phase 
of  productive  efficiency  and  creative  satisfaction  such  as  it 
has  never  known  before  in  its  entire  history. — Outlook  ( edi¬ 
torial )  125:11.  May  5,  1920. 

The  general  public,  “this  so-called  innocent  third  party,” 
was  arraigned  as  “the  only  wrong  doer  in  industry”  today 
by  Henry  Sterling,  chairman  of  the  Legislative  committee  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  appearing  before  a  Sen¬ 
ate  sub-committee  to  oppose  the  Poindexter  anti-strike  bill 
for  railroads. 

The  proposed  legislation  was  “founded  on  the  theory  that 
the  public  must  not  be  inconvenienced,  must  get  everything 
it  wants  right  away,”  he  said,  and  added: 

“Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  that  the  public  doesn’t  give 
a  d -  for  the  man  who  works? 

“The  public  is  the  only  wrongdoer  in  industry.  The  only 
party  considered  in  the  conflict  is  this  so-called  innocent 
third  party,  while  as  soon  as  we  who  work  take  some  action 
for  our  own  welfare,  they  only  want  to  put  us  in  jail.” — Press 
Dispatch.  May  20,  1920. 

We  are  opposed  to  any  system  of  Compulsory  Arbitration; 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  such  a  system  is  generally 
desired  by  employers  and  employed  and,  in  the  absence  of  such 
general  acceptance,  it  is  obvious  that  its  imposition  would  lead 
to  unrest.  The  experience  of  Compulsory  Arbitration  dur¬ 
ing  the  war  has  shown  that  it  is  not  a  successful  method  of 
avoiding  strikes,  and  in  normal  times  it  would  undoubtedly 
prove  even  less  successful.  Disputes  can  only  be  avoided  by 
agreement  between  employers  and  workers  and  by  giving  to  the 
latter  the  greater  measure  of  interest  in  the  industry  advocated 
in  our  former  reports ;  but  agreement  may  naturally  include  the 
decision  of  both  parties  to  refer  any  specified  matter  or  mat¬ 
ters  to  arbitration,  whether  this  decision  is  reached  before  or 
after  a  dispute  arises.  ( Report  of  the  Committee  on  Relations 
between  Employers  and  Employed  of  the  British  Ministry  of 
Reconstruction.)  January  31,  1918.  Monthly  Labor  Review  7: 
457- 

Generally  speaking,  what  is  called  voluntary  arbitration 
is  resorted  to  only  when  one  side  is  strong  enough  to  com¬ 
pel  the  other  to  submit  to  it,  or  when  public  sentiment  be- 


202 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


comes  so  thoroughly  aroused  that  arbitration  is  practically 
forced  upon  the  belligerents.  Compulsory  arbitration,  on 
the  other  hand,  introduces  a  new  element — the  power  of  the 
State.  It  is  binding  upon  both  parties  irrespective  of  their 
comparative  strength,  and  the  decision  or  award  is  not  in 
accordance  with  the  strength  or  weakness  of  the  employees, 
but  with  the  wishes  and  purpose  of  the  state,  which  com¬ 
pels  the  arbitration.  Compulsory  arbitration  is,  therefore, 
apart  from  all  other  questions,  largely  a  matter  of  the 
strength,  stability,  wisdom,  impartiality,  and  honesty  of  the 
government;  and  the  experience  of  honest  government  with 
compulsory  arbitration  cannot  be  conclusively  cited  for 
countries  with  corrupted  governments  or  vice  versa. — John 
Mitchell.  Organized  Labor,  p.  337. 

There  should  be  fair  tribunals  to  adjust  wage  and  labor  dif¬ 
ferences  in  the  essential  industries  at  least,  and  then  there 
should  be  a  government  control  strong  enough  to  prevent  any 
single  class  seeking  by  force  or  cunning  to  escape  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  a  fair  court  and  impose  its  will  upon  the  whole  pub¬ 
lic  to  the  detriment  of  all  except  the  few  organized  for  this 
purpose. 

The  Cummins  Bill  [Compulsory  Arbitration]  protects 
every  individual  right  to  choose  occupations  and  to  leave  a  job 
whenever,  wherever  and  for  whatever  reason  an  individual 
wishes  to  do  so.  That  is  an  American  citizen’s  right.  But 
the  Cummins  Bill  protects  the  public’s  right  to  say  to  any 
organization  of  individuals  created  or  permitted  under  the  laws, 
that  such  organizations  shall  not  deliberately  create  conditions 
so  one  class  has  a  stranglehold  on  the  rest  of  the  public,  and 
then  proceeds  to  use  that  stranglehold  under  the  guise  of  indi¬ 
vidual  liberty. — S.  J.  Lowell,  Master  of  the  National  Grange. 
Law  and  Labor.  2 :  45.  February,  1920. 

Bad  for  Skilled  Workers 

One  of  the  main  reasons  for  discontent  under  arbitration 
is  the  levelling-down  process  that  the  system  makes  for.  The 
unskilled  worker  has  secured  many  benefits,  in  the  way  of  bet¬ 
ter  conditions  and  higher  wages  under  arbitration.  In  many 
cases,  he  has  acquired  a  decent  status  because  of  arbitration. 

But  as  regards  the  skilled  worker,  arbitration  has  in  many 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


203 


cases  worked  otherwise.  The  wages  fixed  by  the  courts  have 
generally  become  the  standards.  Very  few,  in  a  general  sense, 
have  been  able  to  get  above  the  minimum  rates,  which,  being 
fixed  by  the  courts,  have  become  the  maximum.  For  the  skilled 
worker  then,  arbitration  has  brought  about  a  levelling  down 
to  a  common  plane.  The  best  and  the  worst  workers  get  the 
same  pay.  This  has  bred  personal  jealousies  amongst  the  men, 
caused  friction,  and  led,  in  some  cases,  to  reduced  efficiency  on 
the  part  of  the  better  and  faster  tradesmen,  who  fail  to  see  why 
they  should  do  more  work  for  the  same  money  paid  to  their 
less  skilled  and  slower  shop-mates. — W.  F.  Ahearn ,  Editor  “The 
Worker ”  Sidney ,  Australia,  in  Reconstruction.  2:24.  January, 
1920. 

Employers,  who  formerly  condemned  arbitration,  now  say 
that  “arbitration  has  become  an  essential  part  of  our  social 
machinery  and  must  be  retained  and  assisted”  simply  because 
they  have  discovered  that  all  they  have  to  do  is  to  flood  the 
arbitration  court  with  cases,  and  the  court  becoming  congested, 
the  cases  cannot  be  heard  till  some  time  in  the  future. 

There  are  cases  now  pending  in  the  Arbitration  Courts 
which  cannot  possibly  be  heard  within  the  next  two  years. 
Meanwhile  the  workers  have  to  keep  working  under  existing 
awards,  as  any  strike  on  their  part  while  a  case  is  registered 
in  the  courts,  means  that  they  are  cancelled  as  a  union  and 
their  awards  are  nullified,  and  they  are  again  at  starting  point. 

Thus  arbitration  can  be,  and  is,  a  very  good  weapon  for 
the  unscrupulous  employer  wishing  to  fend  off  an  award  for 
increased  wages  till  some  time  in  the  future.  There  is  also  this 
bitter  realization  on  the  part  of  the  workers.  During  the  time 
that  the  cases  are  thus  hung  up  in  the  courts,  the  claims  be¬ 
come  obsolete,  the  cost  of  living  on  which  they  were  based, 
has  increased,  and  they  are  faced  with  either  contesting  a  claim 
that  is  worthless  to  them  or  withdrawing  the  old  claims  and 
setting  up  fresh  ones. — W.  F.  Ahearn.  Reconstruction.  2:24. 
January,  1920. 

The  representatives  of  employers  and  workingmen,  who 
have  testified  before  the  Industrial  Commission,  have  almost 
uniformly  opposed  compulsory  arbitration.  Their  arguments 
are  more  fully  set  forth  in  the  digests  of  testimony  of  vari¬ 
ous  reports  of  the  commission.  (See  volume  4,  p.  149;  volume 


204 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


7,  p.  127;  volume  12,  p.  clvii.)  Several  state  boards  of  arbi¬ 
tration  in  the  United  States  have  also,  from  time  to  time,  ex¬ 
pressed  their  opinion  against  compulsory  arbitration  as  a 
general  principle,  and  one  or  two  of  the  boards  have  specifically 
opposed  it  in  any  form.  These  boards  in  New  York,  Indiana, 
Ohio,  and  Illinois,  however,  have  favored  compulsion  in  certain 
cases,  especially  as  to  disputes  which,  on  account  of  their  bit¬ 
terness  and  violence,  endanger  life  and  the  public  welfare,  or 
which,  like  those  on  great  railroad  systems  or  on  street  rail¬ 
ways,  entail  great  inconvenience  and  loss  upon  the  people 
generally.  The  United  States  strike  commission,  which  in¬ 
vestigated  the  great  railroad  strike  of  1894,  reported  against 
compulsory  settlement  of  labor  disputes  on  railways,  but  ad¬ 
vocated  the  establishment  of  a  commission  with  power  to  in¬ 
vestigate  such  disputes  and  to  recommend  terms  of  settlement 
to  the  parties,  as  well  as  to  make  public  its  opinions  as  to  the 
merits  of  the  dispute. — Report  of  the  Industrial  Commission. 
1901.  vol.  17.  p.  cxiii. 

Compulsory  arbitration  means  the  opening  up  of  the  en¬ 
tire  subject  matter.  It  means  conditions  that  are  contrary 
to  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  and  may  lead  to  conditions 
that  are  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  human  rights.  Compul¬ 
sory  arbitration  if  it  means  anything,  means  that  the  em¬ 
ployer  may  be  compelled  to  operate  upon  an  award  made 
by  the  Board  of  Arbitration  that  would  lead  to  a  loss  and 
ultimately  the  wiping  out  of  his  entire  capital,  or  it  may,  on 
the  other  hand,  lead  to  employes  being  compelled  to  work 
under  conditions  that  are  onerous  to  them,  that  would  be  a 
species  of  slavery.  Compulsory  arbitration,  in  addition  to 
opening  up  the  entire  field  for  consideration,  creates  a  con¬ 
dition  that  is  unfair  to  the  employe,  because  in  dealing  with 
the  problems  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  then  the  whole 
subject  matter  is  thrown  open,  the  employer  is  protected  by 
a  clean-cut  dividing  line  between  profit  and  loss,  which  can 
be  shown  by  his  records.  He  is  protected  in  presenting  his 
case  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  by  that  clean-cut  divid¬ 
ing  line,  but  the  employe  has  no  such  clean-cut  dividing  line. 
The  standard  of  living  is  flexible.  It  may  be  raised  or  low¬ 
ered  and  the  workman  still  lives,  so  the  workman  has  no  di¬ 
viding  line  to  protect  him. — Hon.  William  B.  Wilson ,  Secre¬ 
tary  of  Labor ,  in  The  Colliery  Engineer.  34:296.  December,  1913. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


205 


Testimony  of  Carroll  D.  Wright ,  former  Commissioner  of 

Labor 

The  first  economic  result  of  compulsory  arbitration  would 
be  to  compel  the  manufacturer,  for  instance,  to  pay  a  certain 
wage  under  penalties  of  law,  which  is  a  very  direct  attempt  to 
establish  wages  by  law,  and  hence  prices ;  and  any  compulsory 
arbitration  law  ought  to  provide  that  if  the  prices  are  not  paid, 
such  as  would  be  necessitated  by  the  lawful  wage,  the  purchaser 
should  be  held  responsible  in  some  way.  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  would  compel  the  employee  to  work  for  a  wage  which 
he  did  not  wish  to,  and  hold  him  responsible  under  some  form 
of  penalty  for  not  working  for  $1.80  or  $2 — $1.80  when  he 
was  getting  $2,  for  instance — and  there  is  no  law  big  enough 
to  put  everybody  in  jail.  Sdme  would  have  to  be  left  outside. 
Every  time  that  any  country  has  attempted  to  fix  wages  by 
law,  whether  in  America  or  in  Europe,  there  has  been  a  very 
contemptible  failure.  The  second  effect  of  compulsory  arbitra¬ 
tion  would  be  to  compel  the  employer  to  shut  up  his  works, 
and  of  all  employees,  if  they  did  not  like  the  decision,  to  quit 
work  and  leave  the  country.  The  third  would  be,  if  the  manu¬ 
facturer  saw  fit  to  carry  on  his  works  under  the  decision  of  a 
court  of  compulsory  arbitration,  to  compel  him  to  join  a  trust 
immediately;  and  I  think  if  the  government  ever  wants  to  drive 
everybody  into  the  trust  form  of  carrying  on  business  the  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration  would  be  perfectly  satisfactory.  It  seems 
to  me  it  would  kill  industry.  I  have  no  faith  in  it,  either  from 
a  moral  or  economic  view.  I  have  always  so  expressed  myself. 
It  is  a  doctrine  which,  so  far  as  I  know,  finds  no  approval  of 
organized  labor  anywhere.  I  have  never  known  of  any  trade 
unionist,  or  member  of  a  labor  organization  of  whatever 
character,  to  approve  compulsory  arbitration.  There  may  have 
been  cases.  Certainly  the  employer  would  not  approve  it. 
While  I  believe  in  arbitration  as  a  help,  never  as  a  solution  of 
labor  problems,  it  seems  to  me  that  compulsory  arbitration 
would  be  a  positive  injury. — Report  of  the  Industrial  Commis¬ 
sion  [1901].  7:11-12. 


206 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


NEW  ZEALAND  ARBITRATION  STATISTICS1 

Prosecutions  for 

Awards  in  Prosecutions  to  strikes  and 
Year  arbitration  enforce  awards  lockouts 

1910  89  561  6 

1911  74  539  69 

191a  80  464  2 

1913  94  436  50 

1914  93  363  7 

1915  7i  340  0 

1916  .  10  2  285  o 

1917  168  194  17 

1918  114  288  o 

Total  .  885  3470  15* 

1  Research  Report  No.  23,  National  Industrial  Conference  Eoard,  p. 
29  and  31. 

STRIKES  IN  NEW  ZEALAND1 

Year  Number 

1894-1905  .  0 

1906  .  1 

1907  .  12 

1908  .  12 

1909  .  4 

1910  .  11 

*9”  . 15 

1912  . . .  20 

I9U  .  23 

1914  .  46 

*9*5  .  4 

1916  . 7 

1917  . ? .  8 

1918  6 


Total  .  169 

1  Research  Report  No.  23,  National  Industrial  Conference  Board,  p.  31. 


PART  IV 


COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION  OF 
INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


AFFIRMATIVE  DISCUSSION 


COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION1 

“Compulsory  investigation,”  but  “not  to  the  extent  of 
compulsory  arbitration,”  is  the  pertinent  suggestion  of  the 
Senate  committee  that  investigated  the  steel  strike  in  a  re¬ 
port  that  appears  to  be  broad  and  judicial,  and  calculated  to 

carry  conviction. 

It  is  apparent  that  the'lack  of  some  agency  before  which 
disputes  between  capital  and  labor  can  be  brought  for  in¬ 
vestigation  has  been  a  serious  handicap  in  securing  industrial 
adjustments.  Not  only  should  this  medium  be  available  to 
both  parties  to  the  dispute,  but  these  investigations  should 
be  compulsory.  The  strike  or  lockout  may  follow,  but  the 
facts  would  first  be  published  by  an  impartial  agency,  and 
the  public  could  then  take  sides  according  to  its  inclination. 

Under  present  conditions  a  great  upheaval  occurs  in  in¬ 
dustry.  The  public  becomes  a  party  to  the  controversy  with¬ 
out  having  an  intelligent  understanding  of  the  case.  Claims 
diametrically  opposed  are  put  forth  by  the  steel  company 
and  by  its  men,  while  the  public  knows  little  of  the  merits 
of  the  case.  Public  opinion  has  been  inclined  against  the 
strikes  in  some  cases  not  because  the  strikers  have  no  griev¬ 
ance,  but  because  they  have  not  presented  it  in  the  right 
way.  Similar  conditions  exist  in  regard  to  the  coal  strike. 
Charges  and  counter-charges  have  been  made,  but  no  one 
who  is  disinterested  seems  to  know  the  facts.  Few  doubt 
the  men  have  a  grievance,  a  very  serious  grievance,  but  the 
injection  of  revolutionary  talk  has  aroused  prejudices  that 
have  obscured  the  real  issue. 

What  the  Senate  committee  found  after  the  strike  had 
been  declared  should  have  been  discovered  before  the  strike 
was  called.  And  had  the  facts  been  known,  had  they  been 


1  Editorial  in  the  Public.  22:1108.  November  29,  1919. 


210 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


set  forth  by  some  tribunal  or  other  body  commanding  pub¬ 
lic  confidence,  informed  public  opinion  would  have  compelled 
redress.  Compulsory  arbitration  is  so  repugnant  to  labor 
that  its  use  would  be  inadvisable  even  if  such  a  law  could 
be  enacted.  But  compulsory  investigation  should  be  wel¬ 
comed  by  all  honest  parties  to  a  controversy.  With  free 
discussion  of  labor  troubles  and  impartial  reports  of  the 
facts,  public  opinion  will  compel  a  settlement. 

PRESIDENT  WILSON  RECOMMENDS 
COMPULSORY  INVESTIGATION  1 

I  have  come  to  you  to  seek  your  assistance  in  dealing 
with  a  very  grave  situation  which  has  arisen  out  of  the  de¬ 
mand  of  the  employees  of  the  railroads  engaged  in  freight 
train  service  that  they  be  granted  an  eight-hour  working 
day,  safeguarded  by  payment  for  an  hour  and  a  half  of  serv¬ 
ice  for  every  hour  of  work  beyond  the  eight. 

The  matter  has  been  agitated  for  more  than  a  year.  The 
public  has  been  made  familiar  with  the  demands  of  the  men 
and  the  arguments  urged  in  favor  of  them,  and  even  more 
familiar  with  the  objections  of  the  railroads  and  their  coun¬ 
ter  demand  that  certain  privileges  now  enjoyed  by  their 
men  and  certain  bases  of  payment  worked  out  through  many 
years  of  contest  be  reconsidered,  especially  in  their  relation 
to  the  adoption  of  an  eight  hour  day.  The  matter  came 
some  three  weeks  ago  to  a  final  issue  and  resulted  in  a  com¬ 
plete  deadlock  between  the  parties.  The  means  provided  by 
law  for  the  mediation  of  the  controversy  failed  and  the 
means  of  arbitration  for  which  the  law  provides  were  rejected. 
The  representatives  of  the  railway  executives  proposed  that 
the  demands  of  the  men  be  submitted  in  their  entirety  to  arbi¬ 
tration,  along  with  certain  questions  of  readjustment  as  to 
pay  and  conditions  of  employment  which  seemed  to  them 
to  be  either  closely  associated  with  the  demands  or  to  call 
for  reconsideration  on  their  own  merits;  the  men  absolutely 
declined  arbitration,  especially  if  any  of  their  established 


1  Extract  from  the  special  address  of  President  Wilson  in  Congress 
on  the  threatened  railroad  strike  and  the  eight-hour  law.  August  29,  1916. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


21 1 


privileges  were  by  that  means  to  be  drawn  again  in  ques¬ 
tion.  The  law  in  the  matter  put  no  compulsion  upon  them. 
The  four  hundred  thousand  men  from  whom  the  demands 
proceeded  had  voted  to  strike  if  their  demands  were  re¬ 
fused;  the  strike  was  imminent;  it  has  since  been  set  for  the 
fourth  of  September  next.  It  affects  the  men  who  man  the 
freight  trains  on  practically  every  railway  in  the  country. 
The  freight  service  throughout  the  United  States  must  stand 
still  until  their  places  are  filled,  if,  indeed,  it  should  prove 
possible  to  fill  them  at  all.  Cities  will  be  cut  off  from  their 
food  supplies,  the  whole  commerce  of  the  nation  will  be 
paralyzed,  men  of  every  sort  and  occupation  will  be  thrown 
out  of  employment,  countless  thousands  will  in  all  likeli¬ 
hood  be  brought,  it  may^be,  to  the  very  point  of  starvation, 
and  a  tragical  national  calamity  brought  on,  to  be  added  to 
the  other  distresses  of  the  time,  because  no  basis  of  accom¬ 
modation  or  settlement  has  been  found. 

*  *  * 

I  yield  to  no  man  in  firm  adherence,  alike  of  conviction 
and  of  purpose,  to  the  principle  of  arbitration  in  industrial 
disputes;  but  matters  have  come  to  a  sudden  crisis  in  this 
particular  dispute  and  the  country  has  been  caught  unpro¬ 
vided  with  any  practical  means  of  enforcing  that  convic¬ 
tion  in  practice  (by  whose  fault  we  will  not  now  stop  to 
inquire).  A  situation  had  to  be  met  whose  elements  and  fixed 
conditions  were  indisputable.  The  practical  and  patriotic 
course  to  pursue,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  was  to  secure  imme¬ 
diate  peace  by  conceding  the  one  thing  in  the  demands  of 
the  men  which  society  itself  and  any  arbitrators  who  repre¬ 
sented  public  sentiment  were  most  likely  to  approve,  and 
immediately  lay  the  foundations  for  securing  arbitration  with 
regard  to  everything  else  involved.  The  event  has  confirmed 
that  judgment. 

I  was  seeking  to  compose  the  present  in  order  to  safe¬ 
guard  the  future;  for  I  wished  an  atmosphere  of  peace  and 
friendly  cooperation  in  which  to  take  counsel  with  the  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  the  nation  with  regard  to  the  best  means 
for  providing,  so  far  as  it  might  prove  possible  to  provide, 
against  the  recurrence  of  such  unhappy  situations  in  the  fu¬ 
ture — the  best  and  most  practicable  means  of  securing  calm 


212 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


and  fair  arbitration  of  all  industrial  disputes  in  the  days  to 
come.  This  is  assuredly  the  best  way  of  vindicating  a  prin¬ 
ciple,  namely,  having  failed  to  make  certain  of  its  observance 
in  the  present,  to  make  certain  of  its  observance  in  the  future. 

But  I  could  only  propose.  I  could  not  govern  the  will 
of  others  who  took  an  entirely  different  view  of  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  case,  who  even  refused  to  admit  the  circum¬ 
stances  to  be  what  they  have  turned  out  to  be. 

Having  failed  to  bring  the  parties  to  this  critical  contro¬ 
versy  to  an  accommodation,  therefore,  I  turn  to  you,  deem¬ 
ing  it  clearly  our  duty  as  public  servants  to  leave  nothing 
undone  that  we  can  do  to  safeguard  the  life  and  interests 
of  the  nation.  In  the  spirit  of  such  a  purpose,  I  earnestly 
recommend  the  following  legislation: 

*  *  * 

Fifth,  an  amendment  of  the  existing  federal  statute  which 
provides  for  the  mediation,  conciliation,  and  arbitration  of 
such  controversies  as  the  present  by  adding  to  it  a  provision 
that  in  case  the  methods  of  accommodation  now  provided 
for  should  fail,  a  full  public  investigation  of  the  merits  of 
every  such  dispute  shall  be  instituted  and  completed  before 
a  strike  or  lockout  may  lawfully  be  attempted. 

*  *  * 

There  is  one  other  thing  we  should  do  if  we  are  true 
champions  of  arbitration.  We  should  make  all  arbitral 
awards  judgments  by  record  of  a  court  of  law  in  order  that 
their  interpretation  and  enforcement  may  lie,  not  with  one 
of  the  parties  to  the  arbitration,  but  with  an  impartial  and 
authoritative  tribunal. 

These  things  I  urge  upon  you,  not  in  haste  or  merely 
as  a  means  of  meeting  a  present  emergency,  but  as  perma¬ 
nent  and  necessary  additions  to  the  law  of  the  land,  sug¬ 
gested,  indeed,  by  circumstances  we  had  hoped  never  to  see, 
but  imperative  as  well  as  just,  if  such  emergencies  are  to 
be  prevented  in  the  future.  I  feel  that  no  extended  argu¬ 
ment  is  needed  to  commend  them  to  your  favorable  consid¬ 
eration.  They  demonstrate  themselves.  The  time  and  the 
occasion  only  give  emphasis  to  their  importance.  We  need 
them  now  and  we  shall  continue  to  need  them. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


213 


PRESIDENT  WILSON  “EARNESTLY  RENEWS” 
HIS  RECOMMENDATIONS1 

e 

I  realize  the  limitations  of  time  under  which  you  will  neces¬ 
sarily  act  at  this  session  and  shall  make  my  suggestions  as  few 
as  possible ;  but  there  were  some  things  left  undone  at  the  last 
session,  which  there  will  now  be  time  to  complete  and  which  it 
seems  necessary  in  the  interest  of  the  public  to  do  at  once. 

In  the  first  place,  it  seems  to  me  imperatively  necessary 
that  the  earliest  possible  consideration  and  action  should  be 
accorded  the  remaining  measures  of  the  programme  of  set¬ 
tlement  and  regulation  which  I  had  occasion  to  recommend 
to  you  at  the  close  of  your  last  session  in  view  of  the  public 
dangers  disclosed  by  the  unaccommodated  difficulties  which 
then  existed,  and  which  still  unhappily  continue  to  exist,  be¬ 
tween  the  railroads  of  the  country  and  their  locomotive  en¬ 
gineers,  conductors,  and  trainmen. 

I  then  recommended: 

*  *  * 

Fifth,  an  amendment  of  the  existing  federal  statute  which 
provides  for  the  mediation,  conciliation,  and  arbitration  of 
such  controversies  as  the  present  by  adding  to  it  a  pro¬ 
vision  that,  in  case  the  methods  of  accommodation  now  pro¬ 
vided  for  should  fail,  a  full  public  investigation  of  the  mer¬ 
its  of  every  such  dispute  shall  be  instituted  and  completed 

before  a  strike  or  lockout  may  lawfully  be  attempted. 

*  *  * 

The  other  suggestions, — the  provision  for  full  public  in¬ 
vestigation  and  assessment  of  industrial  disputes, — I  now 
very  earnestly  renew. 

*  *  * 

The  country  can  not  and  should  not  consent  to  remain 
any  longer  exposed  to  profound  industrial  disturbances  for 
lack  ©f  additional  means  of  arbitration  and  conciliation  which 

the  Congress  can  easily  and  promptly  supply. 

*  *  * 

This  is  a  program  of  regulation,  prevention,  and  sdminis- 

1  Extract  from  the  fourth  annual  address  of  President  Wilson  to 
Congress,  December  5,  1916. 


214 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


trative  efficiency  which  argues  its  own  case  in  the  mere 
statement  of  it. 

*  *  * 

I  would  hesitate  to  recommend,  and  I  dare  say  the  Con¬ 
gress  would  hesitate  to  act  upon  the  suggestion  should  I 
make  it,  that  any  man  in  any  occupation  should  be  obliged 
by  law  to  continue  in  an  employment  which  he  desired  to 
leave.  To  pass  a  law  which  forbade  or  prevented  the  indi¬ 
vidual  workman  to  leave  his  work  before  receiving  the  ap¬ 
proval  of  society  in  doing  so  would  be  to  adopt  a  new  prin¬ 
ciple  into  our  jurisprudence  which  I  take  it  for  granted  we 
are  not  prepared  to  introduce.  But  the  proposal  that  the 
operation  of  the  railways  of  the  country  shall  not  be  stopped 
or  interrupted  by  the  concerted  action  of  organized  bodies 
of  men  until  a  public  investigation  shall  have  been  instituted 
which  shall  make  the  whole  cpiestion  at  issue  plain  for  the 
judgment  of  the  opinion  of  the  nation  is  not  to  propose  any 
such  principle.  It  is  based  upon  the  very  different  principle 
that  the  concerted  action  of  powerful  bodies  of  men  shall 
not  be  permitted  to  stop  the  industrial  processes  of  the  na¬ 
tion,  at  any  rate  before  the  nation  shall  have  had  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  acquaint  itself  with  the  merits  of  the  case  as  be¬ 
tween  employee  and  employer,  time  to  form  its  opinion  up¬ 
on  an  impartial  statement  of  the  merits,  and  opportunity  to 
consider  all  practicable  means  of  conciliation  or  arbitration. 
I  can  see  nothing  in  that  proposition  but  the  justifiable  safe¬ 
guarding  by  society  of  the  necessary  processes  of  its  very 
life.  There  is  nothing  arbitrary  or  unjust  in  it  unless  it  be 
arbitrarily  and  unjustly  done.  It  can  and  should  be  done 
with  a  full  and  scrupulous  regard  for  the  interests  and  lib¬ 
erties  of  all  concerned  as  well  as  for  the  permanent  interests 
of  society  itself. 

GOVERNMENT  PREVENTION  OF  RAILROAD 

STRIKES1 

The  American  people  awakened  recently  to  find  them¬ 
selves  threatened  with  an  interruption  of  transportation 
throughout  the  country.  This  imminent  danger  aroused  for 

1  By  Samuel  O.  Dunn,  Editor  Railway  Age  Gazette, '  in  Scribner’s 
Magazine,  61:307-14.  March,  1917. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


215 


the  first  time  in  a  majority  a  realization  of  the  extent  to 
which  the  public  welfare  has  come  to  depend  on  the  contin¬ 
uous  maintenance  of  railway  service.  To  ward  off  the  blow 
Congress  hastily  passed  the  Adamson  “basic  eight-hour  day” 
act.  The  railways  promptly  took  this  measure  into  court  to 
test  its  constitutionality.  Threats  of  a  strike  were  then 
heard  again. 

President  Wilson  recommended  last  August  the  passage, 
along  with  the  Adamson  bill,  of  a  measure  to  prohibit  strikes 
or  lockouts  in  train  service  until  after  public  investigation  of 
the  matters  in  controversy.  He  renewed  this  recommenda¬ 
tion  on  the  reassembling  of  Congress  in  December.  The 
need  for  additional  legislation  dealing  with  labor  controver¬ 
sies  on  railways  has  been  made  so  manifest  recently  that 
before  this  article  appears  the  President’s  recommendation 
may  have  been  acted  on.  The  problem  which  gives  rise  to 
these  controversies  is  not,  however,  one  which  legislation 
passed  to  meet  a  single  emergency  is  likely  to  solve.  It  is 
a  very  difficult  problem — a  problem  at  once  important,  com¬ 
plex,  and  unique.  It  is  a  problem  which  has  arisen  inevit¬ 
ably,  first,  from  the  economic  developments  of  our  time, 
and,  second,  from  the  nature  of  the  railway  industry. 

The  changes  in  economic  conditions  which  have  taken 
place  within  recent  years  have  made  strikes  and  lockouts  in 
many  lines  of  business  matters  of  serious  consequence  to 
the  public.  When  the  largest  concern  represented  a  capital 
of  only  a  few  hundred  thousands  of  dollars,  and  employed 
only  a  few  hundred  workmen,  when  employers  dealt  only 
with  their  own  employees,  and  employees  only  with  their 
own  employers,  a  lockout  or  strike  might  work  great  hard¬ 
ship  or  ruin  to  those  directly  involved;  but  the  public  hardly 
felt  it.  There  was  then  little  occasion  for  government  in¬ 
terference  except  to  prevent  and  punish  violence  and  other 
ordinary  infractions  of  the  criminal  law. 

Within  our  time,  however,  there  have  been  great  in¬ 
creases  in  the  size  of  business  concerns.  Single  corporations 
now  represent  hundreds  of  millions  of  capital,  and  employ 
many  thousands  of  men.  Confronted  by  these  huge  aggre¬ 
gations  of  capital,  employees  have  organized  on  a  grand 
scale  to  pit  against  the  large  bargaining  power  of  the  great 
corporations  the  collective  bargaining  power  of  thousands 
of  workers.  From  local  bodies,  labor  unions  have  developed 


2l6 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


into  national  and  international  organizations.  Individual 
corporations,  even  though  very  large,  have  found  themselves 
at  a  disadvantage  when  dealing  single-handed  with  labor 
unions  national  or  international  in  their  scope.  Therefore, 
in  many  industries  labor  unions  national  in  their  scope  are 
now  confronted  with  employers’  associations  national  in 
their  extent.  Thus  have  combinations  of  capital  and  of 
labor  acted  and  reacted  on  each  other  until  there  has  de¬ 
veloped  a  situation  the  significance  of  which,  in  relation  to 
the  public  welfare,  can  hardly  be  exaggerated. 

In  no  other  field,  however,  is  organized  capital  con¬ 
fronted  with  organizations  of  labor  at  once  so  powerful,  so 
militant,  and  possessed  of  so  many  strategic  advantages  as 
in  the  railway  field.  The  principal  of  these  are  the  four 
brotherhoods  of  employees  in  train  service — the  Brotherhood 
of  Locomotive  Engineers,  the  Order  of  Railway  Conductors, 
the  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen, 
and  the  Brotherhood  of  Railroad  Trainmen.  For  many 
years  each  of  these  organizations  acted  alone;  and  it  was 
the  policy  of  each  to  deal  with  only  one  or  a  few  railways 
at  a  time.  In  not  a  few  cases  failure  to  secure  satisfactory 
settlements  resulted  in  strikes  of  the  members  of  single 
brotherhoods  on  single  roads.  Perhaps  the  most  famous  and 
bitterly  fought  of  these  was  that  of  the  locomotive  engineers 
on  the  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  in  1888.  The  great¬ 
est  strike  in  the  history  of  American  railways,  that  carried 
on  by  the  American  Railway  Union  in  1894,  grew  out  of  a 
boycott  this  union  had  declared  against  Pullman  cars  be¬ 
cause  the  employees  of  the  Pullman  Company  were  on  strike. 
But  the  American  Railway  Union  soon  went  out  of  exis¬ 
tence;  and  the  course  of  the  leading  brotherhoods  continued 
to  be  the  same  as  before. 

About  ten  years  ago,  however,  radical  changes  began  to 
be  introduced  in  their  policy.  The  individual  brotherhoods 
commenced  to  make  identical  demands  upon,  and  to  insist 
upon  carrying  on  negotiations  with,  the  representatives  of 
groups  of  railways  operating  throughout  the  three  great  sec¬ 
tions  of  the  country — East,  South,  and  West.  Then  the 
other  trainmen  began  to  join  with  the  conductors,  and  the 
firemen  with  the  engineers,  in  making  demands  upon  the 
railways  of  entire  sections.  Finally,  in  1916,  the.  engineers, 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


217 


firemen,  conductors,  and  other  trainmen  of  the  whole  coun¬ 
try  united  in  making  demands  upon  all  the  railways.  This, 
it  may  develop,  was  not  the  climax  of  the  railway  labor 
movement.  It  is  reported  that  the  employees  in  train  service 
have  been  trying  to  get  all  the  other  organized  railway  em¬ 
ployees,  especially  the  mechanics  and  other  shopmen,  to  join 
with  them  in  their  struggles. 

Every  step  taken  by  the  employees  has  been  countered 
by  the  managements.  Committees  representing  groups  of 
railways  succeeded  representatives  of  the  individual  manage¬ 
ments  in  labor  negotiations.  Finally,  in  1916,  for  the  first 
time  in  history,  a  committee  representing  the  managements 
of  all  the  railways  confronted  committees  representing  men 
employed  on  all.  This  was  followed  by  another  event  with¬ 
out  a  precedent — a  meeting  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  of  the 
heads  of  all  the  leading  transportation  systems  to  decide 
what  should  be  the  final  stand  of  all  in  a  labor  controversy. 

There  will  be  no  dissent  from  the  proposition  that  revo¬ 
lutionary  changes  in  economic  and  industrial  conditions 
which  powerfully  affect  the  interests  of  the  public  may  de¬ 
mand  correspondingly  radical  alterations  in  public  policy. 
Likewise,  it  will  hardly  be  controverted  that  the  growth  of 
great  combinations  of  capital  and  of  huge  organizations  of 
labor  largely  to  carry  on  gigantic  struggles  with  each  other 
has  worked  an  economic  and  industrial  revolution.  Finally, 
to  most  persons  it  must  be  plain  that  the  part  of  this  revo¬ 
lution  which  has  occurred  in  the  railway  industry  is  of  pe¬ 
culiar  importance.  A  nation-wide  lockout  or  strike  in  any 
of  our  large  industries  would  soon  become  a  serious  matter 
for  the  public.  The  complete  closing  down  of  the  steel 
mills  would  speedily  affect  all  connected  with  branches  of 
industry  which  sell  them  raw  materials  or  buy  their  finished 
products,  and  would  soon  threaten  the  general  prosperity. 
Much  more  speedy,  serious,  and  universal  would  be  the  con¬ 
sequences  of  a  general  closing  down  of  the  plants  used  to 
produce  some  essential  of  industrial  activity,  which  is  also 
a  necessity  of  life,  such  as  coal.  But  the  most  immediately 
and  universally  disastrous  of  all  industrial  catastrophes 
would  be  a  nation-wide  strike  in  railway-train  service.  Such 
a  strike  would  at  once  throw  all  railway  employees  out  of 
work.  By  stopping  the  movement  of  coal  and  raw  mate- 


2l8 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


rials,  it  would  swiftly  shut  down  every  mine  and  factory. 
The  crops  of  the  farmers  would  soon  be  rotting  upon  the 
ground.  Depriving  merchants  of  the  means  of  renewing  their 
stocks,  it  would  soon  close  every  wholesale  house  and  re¬ 
tail  store.  The  people  of  our  great  cities  are  dependent 
from  day  to  day  for  their  food  upon  the  supplies  which  the 
railways  bring  to  them  from  all  parts  of  the  land;  and  they 
would  all  find  themselves  threatened  with  starvation.  As  a 
nation-wide  strike  in  railway-train  service  would  bring  all 
industry  and  commerce  to  a  stop,  it  would  soon  have  the 
effects  of  a  general  strike  of  all  workers  such  as  is  advo¬ 
cated  by  the  syndicalists. 

Until  recently,  it  was  replied  to  such  statements  that  the 
circumstance  that  the  movements  carried  on  by  railway  em¬ 
ployees  were  growing  more  and  more  extensive  did  not  give 
ground  for  fears  of  general  tie-ups  of  the  railways,  or  justify 
coercive  action  by  the  government  to  prevent  them.  The 
ablest  report  on  a  labor  controversy  ever  made  in  this  country 
was  that  rendered  by  the  board  which  arbitrated  the  wage  dis¬ 
pute  between  the  eastern  railways  and  their  locomotive  en¬ 
gineers  in  1912.  This  board,  of  which  President  C.  R.  Van 
Hise,  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  was  chairman  was  pro¬ 
foundly  impressed  by  the  danger  of  extensive  railway  strikes. 
It,  therefore,  advocated  the  creation  of  state  and  federal  wage 
commissions  to  determine  the  wages  and  conditions  of  work 
of  railway  employees.  The  representative  of  labor  on  the  board 
(P.  H.  Morrissey,  formerly  president  of  the  Brotherhood  of 
Railroad  Trainmen)  vigorously  dissented.  “The  developing 
power  of  the  (labor)  organizations  through  concerted  methods 
carries  with  it  increasing  responsibilities  which  the  organiza¬ 
tions  and  their  leaders  recognize,”  said  he.  “They  well  know 
the  value  of  public  approval  of  their  activities  and  are  equally 
conscious  of  its  disapproval.  To  intimate  that  the  transporta¬ 
tion  of  the  country  can  be  brought  to  a  standstill  at  the  whim 
or  caprice  of  a  small  group  of  men  is  not  a  fair  statement  of 
the  manner  by  which  the  powers  of  these  organizations  are  ex¬ 
ercised.”  There  was  a  strike  of  the  employees  of  all  the  rail¬ 
ways  of  France  in  1910,  and  the  majority  of  the  arbitration 
board  described  this  as  an  example  of  what  might  occur  in  the 
United  States.  Mr.  Morrissey  denied  the  analogy.  “The  im¬ 
mediate  cause  of  the  French  strike,”  said  he,  “was  the  refusal 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


219 


of  the  railway  officials  to  confer  with  the  representatives  of 
their  employees  in  order  that  there  might  not  even  be  a  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  employees’  demands.  There  is  no  such  condition 
in  America.” 

Every  argument  made  by  Mr.  Morrissey  was  speedily  re¬ 
futed  by  the  irresistible  logic  of  events.  In  1914  the  engineers 
and  firemen  of  the  railways  west  of  the  Mississippi  River  made 
demands  upon  the  companies,  and  the  companies  made  counter¬ 
demands.  The  railways  offered  to  arbitrate  the  demands  of 
both  sides.  The  employees  consented  to  arbitration  of  their 
own  demands,  but  refused  to  arbitrate  those  of  the  railways. 
The  order  was  issued  for  a  strike.  The  war  in  Europe  had 
just  begun.  It  was  a  time  of  industrial  and  financial  crisis. 
President  Wilson  intervened,  finally  appealing  to  the  managers 
of  the  railways  on  patriotic  grounds  to  withdraw  their  de¬ 
mands,  and  arbitrate  only  those  of  the  employees.  Only  the 
compliance  of  the  managers  averted  the  disaster. 

Still  more  impressive  and  conclusive  was  the  lesson  taught 
last  year.  In  this  instance  not  only  did  all  the  locomotive  en¬ 
gineers,  conductors,  firemen,  and  other  trainmen  for  the  first 
time  join  in  making  demands  on  all  the  railways,  but  they  re¬ 
fused  to  submit  to  arbitration  in  any  form  any  of  the  points 
in  controversy,  whether  raised  by  themselves  or  by  the  roads. 
President  Wilson  asked  the  railways  to  accede  to  the  demand 
for  a  “basic  eight-hour  day”  and  leave  other  matters  in  issue 
to  subsequent  determination.  When  the  labor  leaders  heard 
that  the  railways  had  decided  to  reject  the  President’s  plan, 
they  immediately  issued  an  order  for  a  nation-wide  strike;  and 
it  was  averted  only  by  the  hurried  passage  of  the  Adamson 
act.  The  order  for  a  strike  was  withdrawn  only  thirty-six 
hours  before  the  strike  was  to  have  begun.  It  was  clear  that 
labor  leaders  who  would  issue  an  order  for  a  nation-wide  rail¬ 
way  strike  in  this  manner  and  under  these  conditions  would 
put  such  an  order  into  effect.  It  was  clear  that  railway  man¬ 
agers  who  would  meet  the  issue  unflinchingly,  as  the  railway 
managers  did  in  this  instance,  would  let  a  strike  come.  It  was 
evident,  therefore,  that  the  time  had  arrived  for  a  change  in 
our  methods  of  dealing  with  labor  disputes  on  railways. 

There  has  been  frequent  government  intervention  in  labor 
disputes  on  railways  in  this  country  for  some  years.  The  laws 
under  which  it  has  occurred  have  applied  only  to  disputes  be- 


220 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


tween  the  carriers  and  their  employees  in  train  service.  The 
Erdman  act,  passed  by  Congress  in  1898,  provided  for  media¬ 
tion  by  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  the  Chairman  of  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  and,  if  this  failed,  for  ar¬ 
bitration  by  a  board  composed  of  one  representative  of  the  rail¬ 
ways,  one  representative  of  labor,  and  one  member  chosen  by 
these  two  or  by  the  mediators.  The  Newlands  act,  passed  sub¬ 
sequently  at  the  joint  request  of  the  railways  and  the  labor 
brotherhoods,  created  a  permanent  mediation  and  conciliation 
board  of  three  members,  and  provided  for  arbitration,  if  media¬ 
tion  failed,  by  a  board  of  six  members — two  representing  the 
railways,  two  the  employees,  and  two  supposedly  impartial. 
The  Newlands  act,  like  the  Erdman  act,  left  it  optional  with 
the  parties  whether  they  should  accept  mediation  or  arbitra¬ 
tion.  So  long  as  the  parties  were  disposed  to  make  settle¬ 
ments  through  mediation,  or  to  arbitrate,  this  system  was  use¬ 
ful  as  a  preventive  of  strikes.  When,  however,  in  1916  the  em¬ 
ployees  announced  that  they  would  not  arbitrate,  and  stuck  to 
it,  the  system  of  voluntary  arbitration  broke  down. 

Government  ownership  is  urged  by  some  as  a  specific  for  all 
the  ills  which  develop  under  private  ownership ;  and  recently 
it  often  has  been  suggested  as  the  only  sure  preventive  of 
strikes.  But  strikes  have  not  been  unknown  on  state  railways. 
The  locomotive  engineers  and  firemen  of  the  state  railways  of 
Victoria  struck  in  1903.  A  serious  strike  occurred  on  the  state 
railways  of  Hungary  in  1904.  The  employees  of  the  state  rail¬ 
ways  of  Italy,  by  threatening  to  strike,  succeeded  in  1905  in 
getting  rid  of  an  objectionable  general  manager.  The  em¬ 
ployees  of  the  two  state  railways  of  France  went  on  strike  with 
the  employees  of  all  the  private  railways  in  1910.  There  even 
has  been  a  strike  already  on  the  railway  which  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States  is  building  in  Alaska;  and  it  was 
successful,  the  strikers  getting  practically  all  they  demanded. 

Under  either  government  or  private  ownership  differences 
are  sure  to  arise  from  time  to  time  between  the  management  of 
the  railways  and  the  employees.  In  case  the  differences  become 
serious,  and  strikes  are  permitted,  the  employees,  especially  if 
they  are  organized,  are  likely  to  strike.  The  Prussian  govern¬ 
ment,  true  to  its  character  in  other  respects,  makes  strikes  on 
the  railways  it  owns  and  operates  practically  impossible  by  pro¬ 
hibiting  the  employees  from  belonging  to  unions  or  from  hold- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


221 


ing  meetings  except  such  as  are  attended  and  presided  over 
by  their  officers.  The  employees  of  the  French  railways,  state 
and  private,  on  the  very  day  the  general  strike  was  declared  in 
1910,  were  mobilized  under  the  military  laws  and  ordered  to 
the  colors  for  three  weeks’  training.  The  duty  to  which  they 
were  assigned  was  that  of  maintaining  and  operating  the  rail¬ 
ways  in  the  usual  manner.  It  will  be  noted  that  this  strike  was 
on  both  state  and  private  railways,  and  that  precisely  the  same 
measure  was  used  on  both  to  break  it.  Similar  methods  were 
employed  in  breaking  the  strike  on  the  Hungarian  state  rail¬ 
ways  in  1904. 

It  would  be  neither  practicable  nor  desirable  for  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States  to  interfere,  after  the  Prussian  man¬ 
ner,  with  the  organization  of  railway  employees.  Nor  would 
it  be  possible  in  this  country,  at  least  in  time  of  peace,  to 
break  a  strike  by  mobilizing  railway  employees,  as  was  done  in 
France  and  Hungary.  At  the  same  time,  our  recent  experience 
demonstrated  that  we  could  not  reasonably  hope  much  longer  to 
avoid  nation-wide  railway  strikes  unless  some  form  of  coercion 
was  adopted  by  the  federal  government  to  prevent  them. 

Legislation  has  been  passed  in  many  countries  for  the  pre¬ 
vention  of  strikes  and  lockouts,  not  only  on  railways  and  other 
public  utilities,  but  in  industries  of  almost  every  kind.  Until 
a  comparatively  few  years  ago  proposals  for  the  arbitration  of 
labor  disputes  usually  originated  with  labor  and  were  often 
rejected  by  capital.  Consequently,  at  that  time  labor  leaders, 
seconded  by  most  social  reformers,  advocated  legislation  mak¬ 
ing  arbitration  compulsory.  Within  the  last  quarter-century 
this  system  has  been  tried  in  several  countries,  especially  New 
Zealand  and  Australia.  The  original  compulsory  arbitration  act 
of  New  Zealand  was  passed  in  1894.  District  boards  of  con¬ 
ciliation,  consisting  of  both  employers  and  employees,  and  a 
court  of  arbitration,  consisting  of  a  president,  one  representa¬ 
tive  of  the  unions  of  employers  and  one  representative  of  the 
unions  of  workers,  were  created.  Reports  as  to  the  operation 
of  this  system  are  practically  unanimous.  From  1894  to  1900 
New  Zealand  was  prosperous;  the  awards  of  the  arbitration 
court  usually  resulted  in  substantial  advances  in  wages ;  and 
during  this  time  compulsory  arbitration  was  in  high  favor  with 
labor,  and  there  were  no  strikes.  During  the  next  six  years  the 
country  was  less  prosperous,  the  awards  began  to  result  in  small 


222 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


increases  in  wages  or  none,  and,  as  one  author  says,  “labor  be¬ 
came  less  satisfied,  and  capital  less  distrustful,”  but  there  were 
still  no  strikes. 

Between  1906  and  1912,  when  labor  was  “in  open  revolt  and 
capital  endeavored  to  uphold  the  act,”  there  were  sixty-three 
strikes.  The  first  of  these  was  declared  by  the  employees  of 
the  street  railways  of  Auckland  in  November,  1906,  showing 
that  the  law  was  no  more  effective  as  applied  to  public  utilities 
and  their  employees  than  as  applied  to  other  employers  and 
their  employees.  There  was  provided  a  maximum  fine  of  two 
thousand  five  hundred  dollars  for  any  employer  and  one  of 
fifty  dollars  for  any  employee  who  should  violate  the  arbitra¬ 
tion  law;  and  in  this  case  both  the  company  and  the  striking 
employees  were  fined.  But  from  that  time  strikes  continued 
to  occur  in  various  lines  of  industry  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
fines  continued  to  be  imposed.  In  1909  the  law  was  amended. 
Three  permanent  commissioners  of  conciliation  are  now  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  government.  In  case  of  a  labor  dispute  one  of 
them  goes  to  the  scene  and  tries  to  settle  it.  If  unsuccessful  he 
organizes  a  council  of  conciliation  which  includes  two  or  more 
representatives  of  both  parties.  Every  dispute  must  now  be 
referred  to  such  a  council  before  it  can  be  carried  to  the  ar¬ 
bitration  court.  This  system  is  said  to  work  better  than  the 
earlier  one;  but  the  record  shows  that  while  compulsory  ar¬ 
bitration  in  New  Zealand  has  prevented  lockouts,  it  has  not 
prevented  strikes.  It  has  been  found  possible  under  it  always 
to  enforce  awards  against  employers,  but  not  always  against 
employees.  In  other  words,  the  system  is  effectively  compul¬ 
sory  only  in  its  application  to  employers. 

The  experience  of  Australia  has  been  similar.  The  Aus¬ 
tralian  commonwealth  has  a  compulsory  arbitration  act  which 
has  been  in  effect  for  twelve  years,  and  the  different  states  have 
tried  various  similar  schemes.  They,  also,  have  prevented  lock¬ 
outs,  but  not  strikes.  Norway  formerly  had  a  compulsory  ar¬ 
bitration  law,  but  opposition  to  it  by  both  capital  and  labor 
caused  its  repeal.  After  a  general  strike  in  1916,  which  itself 
followed  a  strike  of  four  months  in  the  mining  and  iron  and 
steel  industries,  another  compulsory  arbitration  law  was  enac¬ 
ted  to  remain  in  effect  during  the  continuance  of  the  present 
war  in  Europe. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


223 


A  measure  similar  in  purpose  to  those  mentioned,  but  nar¬ 
rower  in  its  scope,  and  differing  widely  from  them  in  the  means 
it  provides  for  accomplishing  its  ends,  is  the  Industrial  Disputes 
Investigation  Act  of  Canada.  This  law  was  passed  in  1907  as  a 
result  of  a  serious  and  protracted  coal-mine  strike  in  one  of  the 
Western  provinces.  It  applies  to  railroads  and  other  public  util¬ 
ities,  to  mines  of  all  kinds,  and,  by  a  recent  amendment,  to  all 
industries  engaged  in  productive  operations  of  any  kind  for 
military  purposes.  It  prohibits,  under  heavy  penalties,  a  lockout 
or  a  strike  until  the  matters  in  dispute  shall  have  been  referred 
to  a  conciliation  and  investigation  board.  The  party  about  to 
lockout  or  strike  must  give  notice  to  the  Dominion  government, 
together  with  a  statement  regarding  the  matters  in  controversy. 
The  Minister  of  Labor  calls  on  each  party  to  name  a  member 
of  the  board.  These  two  are  given  opportunity  to  name  a  third, 
who  becomes  chairman.  If  they  fail  to  do  so,  he  is  appointed 
by  the  Minister  of  Labor.  The  primary  function  of  this  board 
is  that  of  mediation.  If  it  fails  to  effect  a  settlement,  it  takes 
testimony  and  prepares  a  report,  which  is  made  public,  sum¬ 
marizing  the  evidence  and  giving  its  conclusions  as  to  the  bases 
on  which  a  settlement  should  be  made. 

This  measure  differs  from  those  establishing  compulsory  ar¬ 
bitration  in  not  requiring  obedience  to  the  awards  made  under 
it.  Like  them,  it  has  not  succeeded  entirely  in  preventing 
strikes.  But  almost  always  in  cases  of  industrial  disputes 
its  provisions  have  been  obeyed,  with  resulting  peaceful  settle¬ 
ments  in  a  large  majority  of  cases.  Of  eighty-five  disputes  on 
railways  which  have  been  investigated  under  its  provisions,  all 
but  seven  have  been  settled  without  strikes  or  lockouts ;  and,  as 
already  indicated,  the  Canadian  law  applies  to  disputes  affecting 
any  class  of  railway  employees,  net  merely  those  in  train  ser¬ 
vice. 

Our  experience  in  the  United  States  has  shown  that  a  sys¬ 
tem  which  leaves  mediation  and  arbitration  of  labor  disputes  on 
railways  entirely  optional  with  the  parties  cannot  be  relied  on  to 
safeguard  the  interests  of  the  public.  At  the  same  time  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  other  countries  with  compulsory  arbitration  shows 
that  while  it  is  attractive  in' theory  it  often  proves  unworkable 
in  practice.  If  employees  are  determined  not  to  carry  out  the 
terms  of  an  award,  there  appears  to  be,  at  least  in  democratic 


224 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


countries,  no  practical  way  of  compelling  them  to  do  so.  Fines 
have  proved  ineffectual,  and  provisions  for  imprisonment  prob¬ 
ably  could  not  be  enforced. 

For  the  present  it  seems  best  to  take  in  the  United  States  a 
middle  course  between  the  policy  of  entirely  voluntary  arbitra¬ 
tion  and  that  of  compulsory  arbitration.  In  other  words,  we 
should  apply  to  labor  controversies  threatening  to  interrupt  rail¬ 
way  service  a  system  modelled  after  that  of  Canada.  The  most 
important  feature  of  that  system  is  that  it  does  not  make  lock¬ 
outs  and  strikes  illegal  and  arbitration  and  acceptance  of  the 
awards  compulsory,  but  that  it  merely  makes  strikes  and  lock¬ 
outs  illegal  if  declared  before  there  has  been  a  public  investiga¬ 
tion  of  and  report  on  the  matters  in  controversy. 

Most  of  the  leaders  of  organized  labor  formerly  advocated 
compulsory  arbitration.  At  present,  most  of  the  labor  leaders 
of  this  country  oppose  the  placing  of  any  restriction  on  the 
right  of  railway  employees  to  strike.  They  declare  that  merely 
to  prohibit  strikes  until  there  can  be  public  investigation  is  to 
subject  railway  employees  to  “involuntary  servitude.”  But  such 
a  system  does  not  involve  any  abridgment  of  the  freedom  of  the 
individual.  It  merely  imposes  a  limitation  on  the  action  of  em¬ 
ployees  collectively;  and  no  principle  of  economics  or  juris¬ 
prudence  is  more  fundamental  than  that  it  may  be  the  right  and 
duty  of  society  to  impose  restrictions  on  the  collective  action  of 
large  numbers  of  men  which  it  would  be  wrong  to  impose  on 
the  action  of  individuals. 

“Involuntary  servitude”  is  merely  a  euphemism  for  slavery. 
It  is  obvious  that  legislation  prohibiting  strikes  until  after  public 
investigation  does  not  establish  slavery.  Therefore,  we  must 
look  beyond  this  argument  for  the  true  reason  why  labor  lead¬ 
ers  are  so  strongly  opposed  to  any  restriction  of  the  right  of 
railway  employees  to  strike.  The  true  reason  probably  is  that 
they  fear  such  restriction  will  result  in  weakening  the  bargain¬ 
ing  power  of  the  labor  brotherhoods.  As  already  stated,  the 
labor  situation  on  railways  and  other  public  utilities  is  unique, 
and  this  point  calls  attention  to  one  of  the  most  important  con¬ 
ditions  which  make  it  unique.  In  every  other  class  of  industry 
employers  have  the  same  legal  power  and  moral  right  to  seize 
upon  favorable  opportunities  to  force  through  reductions  in 
wages  and  changes  in  conditions  of  employment  by  resort  to 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


225 


the  lockout  that  the  employees  have  to  seize  upon  favorable  op¬ 
portunities  to  force  through  increases  in  wages  and  changes  in 
conditions  of  employment  by  resort  to  the  strike.  Therefore, 
in  any  other  industry  in  which  both  employers  and  employees 
are  strongly  organized  there  may  be  a  substantial  parity  in  their 
collective  bargaining  power.  In  the  case  of  railways  and  other 
public  utilities,  on  the  other  hand,  the  employer  may  not  legally 
suspend  operation.  This  means,  as  to  most  classes  of  em¬ 
ployees,  that  he  cannot  use  the  lockout.  In  consequence,  if  the 
employees  of  railways  and  other  public  utilities  are  permitted  to 
strike  whenever  they  please,  this  gives  them  in  collective  bar¬ 
gaining  an  important  advantage.  The  employees  in  railway- 
train  service  in  this  country  have  used  this  advantage  often  and 
skilfully.  It  is  mainly  owing  to  this  that  they  have  got  their 
wages  on  a  basis  higher  than  those  of  any  other  workingmen 
in  the  world.  A  law  absolutely  prohibiting  strikes  in  train  ser¬ 
vice,  if  enforced,  would  largely  destroy  the  advantage  in  bar¬ 
gaining  possessed  by  these  employees.  A  law  merely  prohibit¬ 
ing  strikes  until  after  public  investigation  will  greatly  impair  it. 
While  the  investigation  is  going  on  the  most  opportune  time  for 
putting  a  strike  into  effect  is  likely  to  pass,  and  the  ardor  of 
the  men  for  it  is  likely  to  cool.  This  will  be  partly  because  of 
the  delay  involved.  It  will  also  be  partly  because  of  the  fact 
that  the  public  will  be  informed  as  to  the  matters  in  con¬ 
troversy;  that  it  will  have  before  it  the  recommendations  of  an 
impartial  board  as  to  a  settlement;  and  that  it  probably  will 
strongly  oppose  and  condemn  any  move  to  bring  about  a  strike 
in  disregard  of  these  recommendations. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  leaders  of  organized  labor  these 
are  strong  arguments  against  imposing  limitations  on  the  right 
to  strike.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  public  they  are  just  as 
strong  arguments  in  favor  of  imposing  such  limitations.  It  is 
not  to  the  interest  of  the  public  that  the  employees  of  railways 
and  other  public  utilities  shall  possess  a  disproportionate  power 
in  bargaining  with  their  employers.  The  profits  of  public  util¬ 
ities,  unlike  those  of  other  concerns,  are  controlled  by  public 
authorities  to  prevent  them  from  becoming  excessive.  Since 
such  concerns  are  required  to  do  business  on  a  comparatively 
narrow  margin  of  profit,  every  considerable  change  in  the  wages 
they  pay  must  affect  the  rates  they  charge  the  public  or  the  ser- 


226 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


vice  they  render  to  it.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  it  is 
to  the  public  interest  to  interpose  all  reasonable  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  strikes. 

However,  before  a  system  of  compulsory  investigation  of  in¬ 
dustrial  disputes  can  be  made  to  accomplish  the  greatest  good, 
it  will  have  to  be  given  some  features  which  have  not  yet  been 
introduced  into  it.  Its  most  important  object  should  be  to  pre¬ 
vent  strikes ;  but  it  should  also  aim  to  secure  settlements  of  dis¬ 
putes  which  will  be  just  to  all,  including  the  public.  But  what 
is  just  cannot  well  be  determined  by  such  temporary  boards  as 
have  been  organized  under  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act  in  Can¬ 
ada  and  under  the  Erdman  and  Newlands  acts  in  this  country. 
The  determination  of  the  conditions  of  employment  and  the 
wages  that  should  prevail  on  railways  is  as  technical,  and  al¬ 
most  as  important,  a  matter  as  the  determination  of  railway 
rates.  Therefore  the  investigation  of  labor  disputes  on  railways, 
like  the  regulation  of  rates,  should  be  delegated  to  some  body 
which,  from  the  training  and  experience  of  its  members,  will  be 
skilful  in  getting  at  the  true  facts  and  conditions,  and  in  making 
sound  and  fair  recommendations  as  to  settlements.  The  body 
to  which  this  function  logically  should  be  delegated  is  that 
which  already  regulates  railway  rates  and  operation,  viz.,  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  In  any  event,  the  connection 
between  the  body  that  investigates  labor  disputes  and  the  body 
that  regulates  rates  and  operation  should  be  close. 

Probably  the  best  alternative  to  turning  the  entire  matter 
over  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  would  be  to  pro¬ 
vide  that  each  investigating  board  should  be  composed  of  the 
following:  (i)  A  permanent  chairman,  who  preferably  should 
be  an  army  officer,  and  who,  because  of  the  permanency  of  his 
tenure,  would  in  time  become  an  expert  on  labor  controversies ; 
(2)  a  member  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  to  be 
designated  for  the  occasion,  by  that  Commission,  who  would 
bring  into  the  deliberations  a  broad  knowledge  of  the  railway 
situation;  (3)  a  member  of  the  Federal  Trade  Commission,  to 
be  designated  for  the  occasion  by  the  Trade  Commission,  who 
would  bring  into  the  deliberations  a  broad  knowledge  of  the 
general  business  situation;  (4)  a  representative  of  the  railways, 
who  would  bring  expert  knowledge  of  railway  matters  and  ex¬ 
press  the  railway  point  of  view;  (5)  a  representative  of  the  em- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


227 


ployees,  who  would  bring  expert  knowledge  of  the  labor  situa¬ 
tion  and  express  the  labor  point  of  view. 

The  Erdman  and  Newlands  acts  provided  for  arbitration 
boards  composed  of  equal  numbers  of  representatives  of  the 
railways,  of  the  employees,  and  of  the  public.  It  has  been  justly 
complained  of  these  boards  that  the  minority  of  their  members 
representing  the  public  were  impartial  but  not  expert,  while  the 
majority,  representing  the  employers  and  employees,  were  ex¬ 
pert  but  not  impartial.  Either  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com¬ 
mission  or  boards  organized  according  to  the  alternative  plan 
suggested  above  would  largely  obviate  these  objections. 

As  important  as  it  is  that  the  public  should  have  railway 
labor  controversies  elucidated  for  it  by  an  expert  and  impartial 
board,  the  service  which  such  a  board  could  render  in  influenc¬ 
ing  the  attitudes  of  the  immediate  parties  themselves  might  be 
more  important.  In  order  that  this  service  might  be  rendered 
in  the  most  efficient  manner,  the  law  should  provide  that  no 
strike  vote  might  be  taken  until  the  investigating  board  had 
made  its  report,  and  that  with  every  strike  ballot  sent  out  there 
should  be  enclosed  a  brief  statement,  prepared  by  the  board  it¬ 
self,  setting  forth  its  conclusions  and  recommendations  and  the 
reasons  for  them.  It  might  be  well  to  provide  also  that  strike 
votes  must  be  by  ballot,  so  that  no  employee  may  be  prevented 
from  expressing  his  true  sentiments.  The  question  whether  the 
railway  transportation  of  the  United  States  shall  be  interrupted 
is  a  more  important  one  than  most  of  those  voted  on  at  political 
elections,  and  therefore  no  pains  should  be  spared  to  insure  that 
it  will  be  voted  on  intelligently  and  without  duress. 

The  insuperable  obstacle  that  has  been  encountered  in  the 
administration  of  compulsory  arbitration  laws  has  been  that  of 
getting  employees  to  carry  out  awards.  Will  equal  difficulty  be 
met  in  the  administration  of  a  well-devised  scheme  of  compul¬ 
sory  investigation?  Both  consideration  of  the  conditions  and 
the  experience  of  Canada  indicate  that  it  will  not  be.  The  only 
prohibitions  of  such  a  system  are  those  applying  to  strikes  and 
lockouts  previous  to  investigation.  There  is  no  reason  why  the 
penalties  applicable,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  railway  companies 
and  their  officers,  and,  on  the  other  hand  to  the  officers  of  the 
unions,  to  their  individual  members,  and  to  the  union,  them¬ 
selves  and  their  properties  and  funds,  cannot  be  made  heavy 


228 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


enough,  if  enforced,  to  secure  obedience  to  the  law;  and  it 
should  be  much  easier  to  secure  enforcement  of  penalties  for 
violations  of  such  prohibitions  than  to  secure  the  enforcement 
of  penalties  against  men  who  have  struck  rather  than  carry  out 
an  award  already  made  and  which  they  regard  as  unjust.  There 
is  no  “involuntary  servitude”  in  the  former  proceeding.  The 
latter  savors  strongly  of  it. 

It  is  not  probable  that  a  plan  such  as  that  outlined  would 
secure  entirely  equitable  settlements  of  railway  labor  contro¬ 
versies;  but  it  would  secure  much  fairer  settlements  than  any 
plan  tried  heretofore.  It  is  not  probable  that  it  would  entirely 
prevent  strikes  in  railway-train  service,  but  it  would  almost  cer¬ 
tainly  prevent  nation-wide  tie-ups  while  strictly  limiting  the 
number  affecting  smaller  areas.  Should  a  well-devised  scheme 
of  compulsory  investigation  of  railway  labor  disputes  fail,  public 
sentiment  might  be  educated  by  its  operation  and  irritated  by  its 
failure  to  a  point  where  it  would  cause  the  enactment  and  en¬ 
forcement  of  a  law  entirely  prohibiting  railway  strikes. 


THE  CANADIAN  INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 

ACT1 

Twenty-two  years  ago  traffic  upon  some  of  our  largest 
western  railways  was  interrupted  or  suspended  by  a  wide¬ 
spread  and  protracted  strike.  Business  was  seriously  af¬ 
fected,  millions  of  dollars  were  lost  by  the  disputants  and 
the  general  public,  and  mob  violence  for  a  time  threatened 
the  very  foundations  of  government.  Finally  order  was  re¬ 
stored  and  necessary  intercourse  was  resumed  under  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  federal  troops.  A  United  States  strike  commis¬ 
sion  was  appointed  to  investigate  this  disturbance  and  to  ad¬ 
vise  measures  for  preventing  a  similar  calamity  in  the  future. 
This  commission  recommended  that  lockouts  and  strikes 
upon  railways  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  be  prohibited 
by  law  until  the  grievances  at  issue  had  been  officially  in¬ 
vestigated,  and  the  public  had  been  informed  why  its  own 
rights  and  interests  were  to  be  so  seriously  violated.  The 
present  year  a  strike  that  promised  to  be  even  more  extended 

1  Victor  S.  Clark.  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  of  Political  Science. 
7:10-18.  January,  1917. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


229 


and  disastrous  than  the  one  in  1894  impended.  Congress  had 
not  yet  provided  an  adequate  remedy  for  such  a  crisis,  and 
the  lessons  of  the  previous  episode  had  been  forgotten. 
Therefore  again,  twenty-two  years  after  the  strike  commis- 

\ 

sion  of  1894  reported,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
was  called  upon  to  protect  vital  national  interests  from  in¬ 
dustrial  warfare;  and  he  repeated  in  his  appeal  for  aid  to 
Congress  the  recommendation  made  by  President  Cleveland 
almost  a  generation  ago,  that  lockouts  and  strikes  upon  rail¬ 
ways  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  be  made  illegal,  unless 
preceded  by  a  public  investigation. 

Meantime  Canada,  whose  industrial  conditions  are  almost 
identical  with  our  own,  had  grappled  resolutely  with  this 
problem.  Ten  years  ago  a  bitter  and  prolonged  coal  strike 
in  Alberta  deprived  the  western  provinces  of  fuel;  so  that  as 
winter  approached,  prairie  settlers  could  not  heat  their 
homes,  public  schools  were  closed,  and  industries  using 
steam  power  curtailed  or  suspended  operations.  What  the 
anthracite  coal  strike  of  1902  was  to  our  eastern  states,  the 
strike  of  1906  was  to  the  people  of  the  Canadian  northwest. 
This  private  disagreement  of  a  small  group  of  employers 
and  workmen  so  threatened  the  welfare  of  that  entire  region 
that  the  Dominion  government  was  forced  to  intervene;  and 
partly  by  moral  suasion  and  partly  by  the  power  of  public 
opinion  it  finally  compelled  a  settlement  of  the  dispute  and 
a  resumption  of  coal  production. 

Unlike  the  United  States  after  the  great  railway  strike  of 
1894  and  the  anthracite  strike  of  1902,  Canada  at  once  took 
positive  steps  to  prevent  or  control  similar  crises  in  the 
future.  In  recommending  a  law  for  this  purpose,  Mr  Mac¬ 
kenzie  King,  then  deputy  minister  of  labor  of  the  Dominion, 
thus  stated  the  guiding  principle  of  such  legislation:  “In  any 
civilized  community  private  rights  should  cease  when  they 
become  public  wrongs.”  I  should  like  to  make  that  state¬ 
ment  the  text  of  my  remarks;  for  it  defines  the  only  ground 
upon  which  the  public  is  entitled  to  interfere  in  a  mandatory 
way  with  the  negotiations  between  workers  and  employers. 

The  measure  Canada  adopted  went  beyond  voluntary  con¬ 
ciliation  and  arbitration  laws,  which  were  already  on  the 
statute  books.  Such  laws  had  been  enacted  also  in  the 
United  States,  and  in  both  countries  they  had  been  of  ser- 


230 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


vice;  but  when  most  needed  they  had  failed  in  Canada  as 
completely  and  as  conspicuously  as  they  failed  in  our  own 
great  railway  dispute  last  summer. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  government  was  not  ready  to 
adopt  compulsory  arbitration,  such  as  is  in  force  in  New 
Zealand  and  Australia.  Let  me  repeat  that  the  Canadian 
industrial  disputes  act  is  not  a  compulsory  arbitration  law, 
because  that  erroneous  opinion  seems  to  prevail  widely  in 
this  country.  Canada’s  purpose  was  not  to  compel  the  parties 
to  a  dispute  to  accept  a  government  decision,  nor  to  regu¬ 
late  by  official  mandate  the  working  conditions  of  any  class 
of  labor;  its  purpose  was  limited  to  forbidding  lockouts  and 
strikes  that  directly  affect  the  public  welfare  until  their 
causes  have  been  authoritatively  investigated,  and  have  been 
made  known  to  the  people  who  will  suffer  through  them. 
In  connection  with  this  investigation,  the  law  provides  ma¬ 
chinery  not  essentially  different  from  that  established  by 
earlier  conciliation  acts  in  both  Canada  and  the  United 
States,  to  assist  the  disputing  parties  in  a  voluntary  and 
friendly  settlement  of  their  difficulties.  The  conciliation  fea¬ 
tures  of  the  act  of  1907  were  not  novel,  but  were  mainly  a  re¬ 
enactment  of  previous  statutes ;  while  the  compulsory  in¬ 
vestigation  features  were  at  that  time  practically  new  in 
American  labor  legislation. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  law  extends  only  to  industries  that 
serve  immediately  the  general  public.  These  embrace  rail¬ 
ways  and  transportation  lines,  yard  and  wharf  labor,  tele¬ 
graphs  and  telephones,  power,  light  and  traction  companies, 
and  mines.  Workers  and  employers  in  any  industries  not 
directly  included  within  the  act  may  by  mutual  agreement 
apply  to  have  their  difficulties  investigated  and  adjusted 
under  the  same  law;  but  this  is  merely  using  its  machinery 
for  purposes  called  for  by  any  conciliation  statute.  Recently 
as  a  war  measure  the  jurisdiction  of  the  act  has  been  ex¬ 
tended  to  munition  workers  and  others  employed  in  war 
industries;  but  this  is  a  temporary  expedient  in  an  extra¬ 
ordinary  emergency,  to  be  justified  on  the  same  grounds  as 
the  original  law.  In  a  word,  the  operation  of  the  act  is  con¬ 
fined  to  industries  where  a  cessation  of  labor  would  cause 
more  damage  to  the  general  public  than  any  prospective  ad¬ 
vantage  to  either  party  in  the  dispute  would,  compensate. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


231 


The  law  attempts  to  apply  the  principle  of  the  greatest  good 
to  the  greatest  number. 

No  change  in  the  labor  conditions  of  these  industries  can 
be  made  without  thirty  days  notice.  If  either  employers  or 
workers  object  to  a  proposed  change  they  may  apply  to  the 
federal  Minister  of  Labor  for  a  board  of  investigation  and 
conciliation,  showing  that  a  lockout  or  strike  will  occur  un¬ 
less  the  points  at  issue  are  settled.  Thereupon  the  minister, 
after  assuring  himself  of  these  facts,  appoints  a  board  for 
that  particular  dispute.  This  board  consists  of  three  mem¬ 
bers,  one  of  whom  is  nominated  by  the  workers  and  another 
by  the  employers.  These  two  select  the  third  member,  or  if 
they  fail  to  agree  the  Minister  of  Labor  appoints  him.  The 
third  member  is  chairman  of  the  board.  Please  note  that 
the  board  is  not  a  judicial  body  or  a  non-partisan  umpire, 
but  an  investigating  and  conciliating  agency  containing 
representatives  of  both  sides  of  the  controversy.  However, 
no  person  having  a  direct  money  interest  in  the  business 
affected  by  the  dispute  is  eligible  to  membership. 

Wide  latitude  is  given  the  boards  in  their  method  of  con¬ 
ducting  an  investigation  and  bringing  the  opposing  parties 
to  an  agreement.  They  have  the  powers  of  a  court  to  sum¬ 
mon  witnesses,  to  require  the  production  of  books  and  pa¬ 
pers,  and  to  take  testimony  under  oath.  They  may  person¬ 
ally  inspect  works  and  factories  concerned  in  a  dispute  and 
interrogate  employees.  Most  cases  referred  to  boards  have 
been  settled  without  a  disagreement.  But  if  the  parties  can¬ 
not  come  to  terms  the  board  reports  its  findings,  which  need 
not  be  unanimous,  but  may  consist  of  a  majority  and  a 
minority  report,  or  conceivabl}'-  of  three  individual  reports. 
These  contain  a  statement  of  the  grounds  of  the  dispute,  an 
opinion  as  to  the  justice  of  the  respective  claims  presented, 
and  recommendations  for  a  settlement  of  the  points  in  con¬ 
troversy. 

Pending  the  investigation  a  lockout  or  strike  is  prohibited 
under  penalties  ranging  $100  to  $1000  a  day  for  lockouts, 
$10  to  $50  a  day  for  striking,  and  $50  to  $1000  for  inciting  or 
aiding  an  unlawful  lockout  or  strike.  But  after  a  board 
has  reported,  employers  may  lock  out  their  employees,  or 
workers  may  strike,  if  they  wish  to  do  so.  The  only  excep¬ 
tion  to  this  rule  is  when  both  parties  have  previously  signed 


232 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


a  formal  agreement  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  board. 
In  that  case  they  can  not  break  their  contract. 

This  summary  review  of  the  main  provisions  of  the  act 
necessarily  omits  many  details  that  are  important  in  its  prac¬ 
tical  working,  but  that  can  not  be  discussed  in  a  short  paper 
without  obscuring  the  law’s  leading  principles.  The  two  fea¬ 
tures  that  chiefly  distinguish  the  industrial  disputes  act  of 
Canada  from  the  Erdman  law  and  the  Newlands  law  in  our 
own  country,  are  the  compulsory  investigation  of  certain  la¬ 
bor  controversies  and  the  prohibition  of  lockouts  and  strikes 
pending  that  investigation. 

More  than  nine  years  have  elapsed  since  Canada  placed 
these  provisions  on  the  statute  books.  Up  to  the  18th  of 
last  month  212  disputes  had  been  referred  for  adjustment 
under  the  law,  and  21  strikes  had  occurred;  so  that  about  nine 
out  of  ten  disputes  were  settled  without  stopping  work.  Of 
these  212  disputes,  167  were  reported  on  by  board  or  settled 
through  their  mediation,  and  the  others  were  terminated  be¬ 
fore  boards  were  organized  or  while  the  disputes  were  still 
under  investigation. 

If  we  classify  these  references  by  industries,  during  the  first 
nine  years  of  the  act  seventy-five  boards  were  appointed  in  rail¬ 
way  disputes,  and  in  all  but  six  of  these  strikes  were  ended  or 
averted.  City  traction  lines  were  involved  in  twenty-one  refer¬ 
ences,  only  two  of  which  terminated  in  a  strike.  Only  one  out 
of  nine  cases  of  labor  difficulty  upon  municipal  works  caused 
a  stoppage  of  labor.  Eleven  shipping  disputes,  two  upon  tele¬ 
graph  lines,  two  upon  telephone  lines,  and  three  affecting  light 
and  power  companies,  were  settled  without  a  single  interrup¬ 
tion  of  employment.  On  the  other  hand,  out  of  forty-three  dis¬ 
putes  in  coal  mines,  six  resulted  in  strikes ;  while  in  metal  min¬ 
ing  only  eight  out  of  thirteen  controversies  referred  to  boards 
were  amicably  adjusted  by  them.  The  act  has  not  been  so  suc¬ 
cessful  in  mining  as  in  transportation  and  other  public  service 
industries,  partly  because  popular  sentiment  is  less  intelligently 
informed  and  less  actively  interested  in  mining  controversies 
than  in  those  more  immediately  affecting  the  general  welfare. 
Moreover  the  figures  quoted,  which  are  taken  from  official  re¬ 
ports,  must  be  qualifiecf  by  the  fact  that  labor  difficulties  not 
here  recorded  have  occasionally  ensued  where  the  application 
of  the  act  has  been  doubtful,  or  after  a  board  has  reported  and 
its  findings  have  been  accepted  by  one  or  both  of  the  parties. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


233 


Furthermore,  a  mere  enumeration  of  disputes,  without  re¬ 
gard  to  the  relative  importance  of  individual  controversies, 
gives  little  information  as  to  the  real  service  of  the  act.  One 
big  dispute  ending  in  a  strike  may  outweigh  many  little  diffi¬ 
culties  settled  amicably.  Statistics  can  not  measure  the  respec¬ 
tive  importance  of  averted  and  actual  strikes,  because  the  dura¬ 
tion  and  extent  of  a  potential  strike  are  matters  of  conjecture. 
As  a  rule,  however,  the  larger  the  threatened  disturbance, 
the  harder  it  is  to  handle ;  and  it  is  in  the  field  of  big 
strikes  that  legislation  of  this  character  usually  makes  the 
poorest  showing.  Probably  the  number  of  employees  involved 
in  strikes  that  have  occurred  in  Canada  either  in  violation  of  the 
industrial  disputes  act,  or  legally  under  that  act  because  work¬ 
ers  refused  to  accept  the  findings  of  a  board,  averages  larger  in 
each  difficulty  than  the  number  involved  in  disputes  that  were 
successfully  adjusted.  Nevertheless,  no  great  strike  affecting 
immediatel}^-  the  public  welfare  has  paralyzed  the  industries  of 
Canada  since  this  law  went  into  operation. 

Illegal  strikes  are  of  two  kinds,  those  started  in  ignorance 
of  the  law  or  in  doubt  as  to  its  application,  and  those  in  clear 
defiance  of  government  intervention.  The  few  strikes  that  have 
occurred  in  open  contempt  of  the  act  were  not  in  disputes  where 
the  outside  public  had  much  interest  at  stake,  and  usually  were 
to  be  explained  by  some  local  condition  that  prompted  irre¬ 
sponsible  men  to  impulsive  action.  Some  years  ago  the  United 
Mine  Workers  in  western  Canada  struck  in  violation  of  the  law, 
but  later  they  themselves  applied  for  a  board,  which  was 
granted  and  settled  the  difficulty.  Similar  strikes  have  more  re¬ 
cently  occurred  among  coal  miners  in  Nova  Scotia,  where  there 
is  a  long  standing  jurisdictional  fight  between  a  union  that 
favors  the  act  and  one  that  opposes  it.  In  case  of  such  viola¬ 
tions  the  government  may  prosecute  the  offenders ;  but  in  prac¬ 
tice  it  generally  leaves  the  enforcement  of  the  penal  features  of 
the  law  to  the  aggrieved  parties  in  the  dispute.  As  might  be  an¬ 
ticipated,  neither  employers  nor  workingmen  often  care  to  as¬ 
sume  the  trouble  and  expense  of  court  proceedings.  One  em¬ 
ployer  has  been  fined  for  an  illegal  lockout ;  a  few  union  offi¬ 
cials  have  been  fined  for  inciting  strikes ;  and  an  agent  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  has  been  convicted  both  in  the  lower 
courts  and  on  appeal  for  paying  strike  relief  to  members  of  the 
union  who  had  violated  the  law.  However,  no  effort  has  been 
made  in  the  past  to  punish  a  large  body  of  men  for  striking. 


234 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


This  raises  the  question  of  the  value  of  the  penal  provisions 
of  the  law.  It  is  argued  that  if  the  act  does  not  put  strikers  in 
jail  and  subject  offending  employers  to  heavy  fines,  these  pro¬ 
visions  are  useless.  But  even  though  violations  are  seldom 
prosecuted,  neither  strikers  nor  employers  dare  to  defy  the  law 
of  the  land  in  disputes  prominently  before  the  public  and  affect¬ 
ing  the  prosperity  and  comfort  of  a  large  body  of  citizens.  By 
doing  so  they  would  put  a  powerful  weapon  in  the  hands  of 
their  opponents,  and  they  would  fatally  prejudice  their  case  in 
the  high  court  of  public  opinion. 

The  original  statute  was  amended  in  1910,  and  a  bill  revising 
and  extending  its  provisions  has  been  prepared  and  will  prob¬ 
ably  be  brought  before  Parliament  at  the  close  of  the  war.  Both 
the  amendments  already  made  and  the  proposed  revision  are 
designed  chiefly  to  simplify  and  expedite  procedure  and  to 
hasten  decisions.  Another  projected  change  would  permit 
municipalities  to  apply  for  boards  in  disputes  that  threaten  the 
welfare  of  their  citizens,  though  the  municipal  government  is 
not  a  party  to  the  controversy.  It  is  also  proposed  that  the 
government,  where  requested  by  both  parties,  shall  register  col¬ 
lective  bargains  or  industrial  agreements  entered  into  by  work¬ 
ers  and  employers,  whether  made  through  a  board  of  investiga¬ 
tion  and  conciliation  or  without  government  mediation,  and  that 
when  so  recorded  these  agreements  shall  be  enforceable  by  law. 
The  new  bill  also  provides  that  boards  may  be  reconvened  for 
the  purpose  of  interpreting  their  awards.  Recently  when  a  seri¬ 
ous  strike  seemed  imminent  on  the  Canadian  Pacific  railway  an¬ 
other  defect  in  the  present  law  appeared.  This  dispute  was  in¬ 
vestigated  and  reported  upon  by  a  board  of  investigation  and 
conciliation  in  1914,  just  as  the  war  broke  out.  The  employees 
refused  to  accept  the  board’s  recommendation,  but  deferred 
striking  on  account  of  the  war.  The  present  autumn,  two  years 
after  the  findings  of  the  board  of  1914  were  published,  they 
claimed  the  right  still  to  strike  on  account  of  their  rejection  of 
the  previous  report.  Happily  this  controversy  was  settled  with¬ 
out  an  interruption  of  traffic;  but  the  law  ought  to  limit  the 
period  after  a  board  reports  during  which  a  lockout  or  strike 
may  be  entered  into  without  a  second  investigation. 

Some  years  ago,  while  this  legislation  was  still  new,  I  was 
twice  commissioned  to  investigate  its  operation  for  our  govern¬ 
ment.  Since  these  two  visits,  which  extended  through  nearly 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


235 


all  the  provinces  of  the  Dominion,  I  have  had  little  opportunity 
to  interview  workingmen  and  employers  directly  affected  by  the 
act.  At  that  time  it  was  commended  by  the  general  public,  by 
employers,  and  by  the  mass  of  working  people ;  but  it  evoked 
criticism  from  some  labor  leaders.  However,  these  objections 
were  to  details  of  the  law  rather  than  to  its  fundamental  princi¬ 
ples.  When  the  amendments  of  1910  were  before  Parliament, 
the  Minister  of  Labor  read  letters  from  the  legislative  repre¬ 
sentatives  or  other  high  Canadian  officers  of  the  brotherhoods 
of  locomotive  engineers,  of  locomotive  firemen  and  enginemen, 
of  railway  trainmen,  of  maintenance  of  way  employees,  and  of 
the  order  of  railway  telegraphers,  all  commending  the  existing 
law  and  the  proposed  amendments.  The  president  of  the  broth¬ 
erhood  of  maintenance  of  way  employees  characterized  the 
act  as  “one  of  the  best  pieces  of  legislation  that  has  been  passed 
to  my  knowledge  in  the  interest  of  industrial  peace.”  Sir 
George  Askwith,  who  investigated  the  working  of  this  law  for 
the  British  government  late  in  1912,  stated  in  his  conclusions : 

I  was  struck  by  tbe  remarkable  difference  of  attitude  displayed  by 
railway  union  officials  generally,  as  compared  with  some  of  the  trade- 
union  leaders  in  other  trades.  The  former  appeared  to  recognize  that 
the  holding  up  of  a  railway  system  by  a  strike  was  a  procedure  only 
justifiable  as  a  last  resort,  and  that  it  was  due  to  the  public  that  every 
possible  step  be  taken  to  arrive  at  a  settlement  before  recourse  was  had 
to  a  strike  as  a  measure  of  adjusting  differences.  The  result  of  this 
attitude  has  been  that  the  Canadian  railway  unions  .  .  .  have  frankly 

accepted  the  spirit  of  the  .  .  .  acts,  and  apply  as  a  natural  course 

for  boards  of  investigation  and  conciliation  when  difficulties  that  threaten 
to  become  serious  arise.  ...  At  the  meeting  of  the  trade-union 
congress  that  I  attended  at  Guelph,  it  was  the  officials  of  the  railway 
unions  who  spoke  most  strongly  in  defense  of  the  act.  .  .  .  The  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  the  theory  that  the  public  have  a  right  to  be  informed  im¬ 
partially  of  the  merits  of  the  questions  which  gravely  threaten  their  well¬ 
being,  and  of  the  spirit  of  the  acts,  has  been  so  far  adopted  by  those 
concerned  with  the  Canadian  railway  system  as  to  place  the  country  in 
almost  as  safe  a  position  against  serious  stoppage  as  it  is  possible  to 
reach. 

Recently  the  trade-union  congress  of  Canada  passed  a  reso¬ 
lution  asking  that  the  law  be  repealed.  During  the  Senate  hear¬ 
ings  upon  the  eight-hour  law  for  train  operatives,  passed  by 
Congress  last  September,  Mr.  Garretson,  president  of  the  Order 
of  Railway  Conductors,  and  Mr.  Gompers,  president  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  strongly  opposed  similar  legis¬ 
lation  in  the  United  States.  The  influence  of  organized  labor 
this  side  of  the  border  is  said  to  account  for  some  of  the  op¬ 
position  to  the  act  in  Canada.  International  unions  have  their 
headquarters  in  this  country,  and  their  officers  do  not  like  to 
give  up  the  right  to  call  a  strike  in  Canada,  if  necessary  in  order 


236 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


to  enforce  demands  upon  employers  in  the  United  States. 
Moreover  union  leaders  want  the  power  to  call  sudden  strikes, 
and  claim  that  the  Canadian  act  gives  employers  time  to 
strengthen  themselves  against  labor  outbreaks.  But  no  great 
strike,  especially  upon  railways  or  in  other  industries  of  na¬ 
tional  importance,  can  now  occur  without  preliminary  negotia¬ 
tions  that  sufficiently  warn  employers  in  advance  of  impending 
trouble.  Any  union  that  called  a  strike  affecting  widely  the 
general  welfare  without  first  attempting  a  friendly  settlement  of 
its  difficulties  would  be  defeated  by  public  opinion.  My  own 
experience  with  workingmen  has  been  that  opposition  to  gov¬ 
ernment  mediation  is  stronger  among  union  leaders  than  among 
their  followers.  Strikes  are  like  wars ;  they  open  opportunities 
for  prominence  and  distinction  to  the  officers  who  lead  them, 
but  only  hardship  and  suffering  to  the  rank  and  file  who  fight 
them.  Still,  the  distrust  with  which  workingmen  regard  laws 
to  control  their  relations  with  employers  is  very  deep.  It  is 
founded  on  an  inherited  memory  of  ancient  abuses  of  authority, 
and  upon  an  instinctive  conviction  that  the  workers  themselves 
are  the  only  sincere  defenders  of  workers’  rights.  A  law  upon 
Canadian  lines  would  need  to  be  very  liberally  drawn,  very  tact¬ 
fully  administered,  and  very  leniently  enforced  to  win  the  con¬ 
fidence  and  support  of  American  labor.  Nevertheless  legislation 
in  this  direction  is  demanded  in  the  United  States  by  the  inter¬ 
est  of  all  the  people.  The  general  right  of  workers  to  better 
their  condition  by  any  means  not  detrimental  to  society  as  a 
whole  is  sacred.  But  the  private  right  of  any  group  of  citizens, 
whether  employers  or  employees,  to  impose  its  demands  by  un¬ 
regulated  force  should  cease  as  soon  as  it  becomes  a  public 
wrong. 

STATEMENT  BY  HON.  G.  D.  ROBERTSON,  LL.  D. 
MINISTER  OF  LABOR  OF 
THE  DOMINION  OF 
CANADA1 

The  Industrial  Disputes  Act  is  not  a  compulsory  arbitration 
law.  The  only  element  of  compulsion  it  contains  is  this,  that  in 
the  case  of  disputes  affecting  mines,  agencies  of  transportation 

1  Written  especially  for  the  Debaters’  Handbook.  'April  20,  1920. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


237 


and  communication  and  other  public  utilities  to  which  the 
statute  applies  it  makes  unlawful  the  declaration  of  either  a 
strike  or  lockout  until  a  real  effort  has  been  made  to  secure  a 
settlement,  and,  if  the  parties  concerned  have  been  unable  to 
reach  a  settlement  between  themselves,  it  invokes  the  assistance 
of  a  Board  of  Conciliation  and  Investigation  to  promote  an 
adjustment  and  bring  out  the  facts. 

During  the  fourteen  years  which  have  elapsed  since  its  enact¬ 
ment  its  provisions  have  been  applied  to  445  disputes,  in  con¬ 
nection  with  which  the  parties  concerned  had  failed  to  agree  on 
terms  of  settlement,  and  concerning  which  a  sworn  declaration 
had  been  furnished  in  each  case  setting  forth  that  “failing  an 
adjustment  or  reference  of  the  dispute  to  a  Board  of  Concilia¬ 
tion  and  Investigation  under-  the  act  a  lockout  or  strike  will  be 
declared  and  that  the  necessary  authority  to  declare  such  lock¬ 
out  or  strike  had  been  obtained.”  It  is  significant  of  the  success 
of  the  act  that  in  all  but  twenty-seven  of  these  cases  the  threat¬ 
ened  strikes  or  lockouts,  as  the  case  may  be,  were  averted  or 
ended.  Moreover,  in  most  of  the  instances  in  which  interrup¬ 
tion  of  work  actually  occurred  (for  the  findings  of  a  Board  of 
Conciliation  and  Investigation  under  the  act  are  not  made  bind¬ 
ing  on  the  parties  concerned),  the  ultimate  settlement  was  on 
the  basis  of  the  Board’s  report.  During  this  fourteen  year 
period  there  was  only  one  serious  interruption  of  railway  train 
service.  Unfortunately,  the  law  has  not  been  as  well  observed 
in  disputes  affecting  the  mining  industry,  but  in  these  fields  also 
its  practical  value  has  been  fully  proven.  Through  its  opera¬ 
tion  there  has  been  an  almost  complete  avoidance  of  strikes  on 
street  railways.  The  telegraph  and  telephone  service  of  the 
country  have  also  been  saved  from  interruptions  which  would 
otherwise  have  occurred.  Undoubtedly,  the  public  has  benefited 
greatly  by  the  uninterrupted  operation  of  agencies  of  trans¬ 
portation  and  communication,  whilst  experience  has  shown  that 
the  rights  of  employers  and  employees  have  been  safe-guarded 
and  upheld. 

The  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act,  like  all  other  good 
things  in  this  world,  has  not  escaped  criticism;  nor  would  it  be 
possible  for  any  law  bearing  on  a  subject  fraught  with  so  many 
difficulties  to  meet  with  universal  favour.  During  the  earlier 
stage  of  its  operation  resolutions  were  passed  by  some  of  the 
labour  bodies  calling  for  its  repeal.  It  is  significant  of  the  pres- 


238 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


ent  attitude  of  the  Trades  and  Labour  Congress,  the  most  rep¬ 
resentative  body  of  organized  labour  in  Canada,  that  at  its  last 
annual  meeting  a  resolution  was  adopted  asking  the  government 
to  amend  the  law  so  as  to  bring  civic  employees  under  its  opera¬ 
tion.  On  the  other  hand,  a  proposal  has  been  received  recently 
from  the  representative  body  of  employers  engaged  in  the  build¬ 
ing  and  construction  industry  throughout  Canada  favourable  to 
the  extension  of  the  act  to  disputes  affecting  this  important  in¬ 
dustry. 

Apart  from  its  application  in  the  case  of  disputes  affecting 
mines  and  public  utilities,  the  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation 
Act  has  also  had  a  limited  application,  by  joint  consent  of  in¬ 
dividual  employers  and  groups  of  employees  to  disputes  affect¬ 
ing  other  departments  of  industry,  such  as  building  and  con¬ 
struction,  meat  and  fish  packing,  manufacturing,  etc.,  and  in 
nearly  all  of  these  last  named  cases  satisfactory  settlements  were 
reached  through  the  Board’s  efforts. 

The  operation  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act 
is  reviewed  in  the  report  of  the  Deputy  Minister  of  Labour  for 
the  year  ending  March  31,  1919. 


TRIAL  BY  JURY1 

Several  years  ago,  when  we  had  to  adjust  a  wage  contro¬ 
versy  with  the  engineers  on  our  eastern  roads,  a  very  distin¬ 
guished  board  of  arbitrators,  in  settling  our  differences,  pointed 
out  the  dangers  inherent  in  attempting  to  settle  railroad  indus¬ 
trial  disputes  by  resort  to  the  strike. 

This  board  said :  “From  the  point  of  view  of  the  public  it  is 
an  intolerable  situation  when  any  group  of  men,  whether  em¬ 
ployees  or  employers,  whether  large  or  small,  have  the  power  to 
decide  that  a  great  section  of  the  country  shall  undergo  a  great 
loss  of  life,  unspeakable  suffering  and  loss  of  property  beyond 
the  power  of  description  through  the  stoppage  of  necessary  pub¬ 
lic  service.  This,  however,  is  the  situation  that  confronts  us  as 
a  nation.” 

It  was  the  opinion  of  this  board  that  “the  public  utilities  of 
the  nation  are  of  such  fundamental  importance  to  the  whole 

j  Ekskj1  Lee,  Assistant  General  Manager  of  the  Pennsylvania  Rail¬ 
road.  Independent.  89:143-4.  January  22,  1917. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


239 


people  that  their  operation  must  not  be  interrupted,  and  means 
must  be  worked  out  which  will  guarantee  this  result.” 

That  situation,  so  vividly  portrayed,  still  confronts  us  as  a 
nation.  It  confronted  us  in  that  crucial  week  in  August  when 
the  president  told  the  country  “This  situation  must  never  be  al¬ 
lowed  to  arise  again.” 

The  remedy  proposed  by  the  president  is  that  “a  full  public 
investigation  of  the  merits  of  every  dispute  shall  be  instituted 
and  completed  before  a  strike  or  lockout  may  lawfully  be  at¬ 
tempted.” 

This,  in  essence,  is  compulsory  investigation  rather  than 
compulsory  arbitration — restricting  the  right  to  strike  or  lock¬ 
out  pending  an  investigation,  but  in  no  way  restricting  the  right 
of  the  parties  in  the  controversy  to  fight  it  out  afterward  should 
they  refuse  to  accept  the  recommendations  of  the  board. 

It  seems  clear  to  me  that  a  differentiation  between  private  in¬ 
dustrial  warfare  and  public  industrial  warfare  such  as  a  rail¬ 
road  strike  is  essential  to  any  intelligent  understanding  of  the 
question  at  issue.  Private  industrial  warfare,  in  other  words, 
need  not  here  be  considered  at  all.  The  situation  is  different. 
The  premises  are  different.  The  conclusions  must  be  different. 
This  fact  is  reflected,  of  course,  in  the  very  law  proposed  by 
the  president  in  that  it  is  concerned  only  with  interstate  com¬ 
merce. 

When  we  were  in  Washington,  we  heard  the  chief  spokes¬ 
men  for  several  million  organized  workers  warn  congress  that 
any  law  restricting  the  right  to  strike  would  be  fought  by  the 
workers  he  represented.  Mr.  Gompers,  in  speaking  before  the 
senate  committee,  placed  in  the  record,  as  the  view  of  organ¬ 
ized  labor,  the  dissenting  opinion  of  the  late  Justice  Harlan  in 
an  admiralty  case,  in  which  the  principles  of  human  liberty  as 
guaranteed  by  the  constitution  were  most  clearly  and  forcibly 
laid  down.  “The  supreme  law  of  the  land,”  said  the  Justice, 
“now  declares  that  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punish¬ 
ment  for  a  crime,  shall  not  exist  anywhere  in  the  land.” 

But  Justice  Harlan,  in  the  same  opinion,  pointed  out  that  “in¬ 
voluntary  service  rendered  for  the  public,  pursuant  as  well  to 
the  requirements  of  a  statute  as  to  a  previous  voluntary  en¬ 
gagement,  is  not  in  any  legal  sense,  either  slavery  or  involuntary 
servitude.”  He  was  referring  particularly  to  service  in  the  army 
and  navy.  But  is  not  service  rendered  in  interstate  commerce 
likewise  a  public  service?  Has  not  the  nation  the  right  to  say 


240 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


to  the  railroad  workers,  as  suggested  by  the  President,  “You 
must  not  interrupt  the  national  life  without  consulting  us?” 

The  threat  of  a  nation-wide  stoppage  of  railroad  traffic,  that 
would  strike  at  the  very  heart  of  our  national  existence,  found 
the  country  unprepared  to  defend  itself,  and  it  brought  home 
to  everybody  the  necessity  of  finding  a  means  of  safeguarding 
the  economic  life  of  the  whole  country  against  the  possibility  of 
internal  industrial  warfare. 

This  is  a  problem  that  must  be  solved,  and  in  its  solution  we 
must  keep  clearly  in  mind  the  rights  and  duties  of  all  the  parties 
at  interest.  The  problem,  it  seems  to  me,  is  but  another  phase 
of  the  centuries-old  conflict  between  private  rights  and  public 
duties. 

Railroad  regulation  has  been  an  evolution.  Our  railroads 
grew  up  in  an  age  when  enterprise,  initiative  and  energetic  busi¬ 
ness  ability  had  unrestricted  opportunity  for  development.  Un¬ 
like  the  railroads  of  Europe  they  preceded  population  and  took 
the  risks  of  pioneers  in  developing  the  country  and  settling  it. 
In  the  early  days  we  were  too  busy  building  the  railroads  to 
think  much  about  regulation.  But  when  the  whole  country  be¬ 
came  gridironed  with  steel  rails  and  steam  transportation  be¬ 
came  an  integral  part  of  the  life  of  the  nation,  there  developed 
our  modern  conception  of  tthe  public  character  of  these  arteries 
of  commerce  and  of  the  need  of  constructive  regulation  in  the 
public  interest. 

The  mandate  of  the  people,  through  acts  of  Congress  and 
decisions  of  the  courts,  is  that  the  railroads  must  be  continu¬ 
ously  operated  in  the  public  interest — the  public  interest  is 
greater  than  that  of  the  individuals  who  own  these  properties, 
or  of  the  individuals  who  earn  their  livelihood  in  the  operation 
of  them.  And  when  the  private  rights  of  the  railroads  have 
come  into  conflict  with  their  public  duties,  the  public,  through 
the  courts,  has  declared  that  public  duties  are  greater  than 
private  rights.  To  the  railroads  the  public  says:  “You  must  op¬ 
erate  continuously,  under  such  regulation  as  we  provide,  and 
under  such  tariffs  as  we  approve.”  Yet,  to  the  two  million  of 
our  citizens  who  are  actually  engaged  in  this  public  service — 
and  without  whom  it  could  not  be  conducted — the  public  has 
neglected  to  issue  any  instructions.  It  has  failed,  in  other 
words,  to  mark  the  difference  between  the  private  rights  and 
the  public  duties  of  the  employees. 

The  unfortunate  controversy  of  last  August  brought  vividly 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


241 


before  the  country  the  weakness  of  a  system  of  public  regula¬ 
tion  of  railroads,  which  fails  to  provide  insurance  against  a 
paralysis  of  the  internal  commerce  of  the  nation.  The  crisis 
came.  The  President  felt  compelled  to  intervene  in  the  public 
interest.  And  when  he  attempted  to  intervene  he  found  that  the 
existing  machinery  of  voluntary  arbitration  was  inadequate  to 
avert  the  threatened  trouble. 

It  may,  indeed,  fairly  be  asked,  Is  not  this  unrestricted  right 
of  the  railroad  employees  to  quit  work  in  a  body  a  menace  to 
the  public  welfare?  Does  not  the  individual  who  chooses  to 
earn  his  livelihood  in  the  public  service  of  transportation  as¬ 
sume  a  duty  to  help  keep  open  these  vital  arteries  of  commerce 
— a  duty  greater  than  the  private  right  to  strike? 

A  member  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  Judge 
Clements,  recently  expressed  the  opinion  that  railroad  employees 
are  affected  with  a  public  interest  that  they  can  no  more  ignore 
than  can  the  carriers,  and  he  suggested  that  there  should  be  a 
legally  established  obligation  upon  these  employees  not  to  inter¬ 
rupt  the  service  by  strike  until  the  justice  of  their  demands  has 
been  determined  by  some  public  tribunal.  Such  a  definition  by 
law  of  the  public  duties  of  railroad  employees  must  have  been 
in  the  mind  of  the  President  when  he  told  a  gathering  of  busi¬ 
ness  men  recently  that  “the  business  of  government  is  to  see 
that  no  other  organization  is  as  strong  as  itself ;  to  see  that  no 
body  or  group  of  men,  no  matter  what  their  individual  interest 
is,  may  come  into  competition  with  the  authority  of  society  it¬ 
self.” 

“America  is  never  going  to  say  to  any  individual,”  the  Pres¬ 
ident  declared,  “‘You  must  work  whether  you  want  to  or  not,’ 
but  it  is  privileged  to  say  to  an  organization  of  persons  ‘You 
must  not  interrupt  the  national  life  without  consulting  us.’  ” 

If  the  all-embracing  commerce  power  under  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  covers  railroad  wages  as  well  as  railroad  rates,  then  the 
way  is  open  for  Congress  to  turn  the  whole  problem  of  railroad 
wages  over  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  or,  as  has 
been  proposed  by  eminent  publicists,  to  an  Interstate  Wage 
Commission,  working  in  cooperation  with  the  Commerce  Com¬ 
mission.  It  may  be  that  something  such  as  this  will  be  the 
ultimate  solution  of  the  railroad  wage  problem — regulation  of 
wages  by  the  same  government  commission,  or  an  ancillary  one, 
that  regulates  railroad  rates. 


242 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


When  it  is  considered  that  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  cost  of 
railroad  operation  is  the  wage  bill,  it  is  seen  how  closely  related 
are  the  considerations  of  railroad  rates  and  the  amount  of  the 
wages  which  the  company  must  pay  to  its  employees. 

No  matter  what  remedy  is  finally  adopted  by  Congress  for 
safeguarding  the  nation  against  the  sudden  interruption  of  in¬ 
terstate  commerce,  there  are  many  strong  advocates  of  a  plan 
for  continuous  oversight  of  railroad  labor  conditions  by  a 
permanent  body  of  expert  commissioners — men  of  the  same 
high  attainments  and  integrity  as  the  men  who  make  up  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

We  are  at  the  parting  of  the  ways.  One  road  before  us  is 
a  continuation  of  the  system  of  unrestricted  private  wage  bar¬ 
gaining  that  eventually  leads  to  settlement  by  force.  The  other 
road  is  a  restriction  and  regulation  of  private  wage  bargaining 
in  order  to  give  fuller  protection  to  the  rights  of  the  public — 
trial  by  jury  instead  of  trial  by  brute  force. 

This  is  a  problem  in  which  all  of  us,  as  American  citizens, 
have  a  vital  interest.  I  have  endeavored  to  state  the  facts  with¬ 
out  prejudice.  I  am  not  an  advocate  of  any  particular  plan,  but 
I  am  an  advocate  of  industrial  peace — not  peace  at  any  price, 
but  peace  that  will  insure  the  best  possible  wages  and  working 
conditions  for  our  employees  together  with  the  highest  efficiency 
in  the  operation  of  our  transportation  systems. 

There  must  be,  as  President  Wilson  has  so  well  said,  “  a  full 
and  scrupulous  regard  for  the  interest  and  liberties  of  all  con¬ 
cerned.” 

I  am  in  favor  of  an  investigation,  rather  than  an  inquest.  I 
believe  there  should  be  an  inquiry  by  some  properly  constituted 
tribunal  into  the  facts  of  a  wage  dispute  before  there  is  any  re¬ 
sort  to  force,  rather  than  an  inquest  after  the  trouble  has  been 
made  and  the  damage  done,  to  learn  the  causes  of  the  disaster. 

I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  all  wage  problems  on  the  rail¬ 
roads  should  be  placed  unreservedly  in  the  control  of  a  public 
commission,  but  I  do  believe  that  when  a  controversy  between 
the  managements  and  the  men  reaches  a  stage  where  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  the  public  are  imperiled,  that  then  there  should  be  a 
peaceful  settlement  and  a  judicial  settlement,  that  will  conserve 
the  public  interest  as  well  as  the  rights  of  the  parties  to  the 
controversy,  and  if  it  is  finally  determined  that  any  body  of  men 
be  required  in  the  public  interest  to  subordinate  their  private 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


243 


rights  to  their  public  duties,  it  should  be  with  the  full  under¬ 
standing  that  their  private  rights  must  be  in  every  way  safe¬ 
guarded  by  the  public. 


AN  INDUSTRIAL  PEACE  PLAN1 

The  fact  that  the  United  States  has  given  to  the  world  a 
peace  plan — embodied  in  thirty  treaties  with  governments  repre¬ 
senting  three-quarters  of  the  population  of  the  world  and  in  the 
covenant  of  the  league  of  nations  (described  by  the  president 
as  “the  heart  of  the  covenant”) — makes  it  worth  while  to  con¬ 
sider  whether  the  plan  may  not  be  employed  for  the  settlement 
of  industrial  disputes.  I  venture  to  add,  if  I  may  be  pardoned, 
that  I  advocated  the  plan  as  a  means  of  settling  industrial  dis¬ 
putes  some  fifteen  years  ago,  before  I  thought  of  applying  it  to 
international  controversies. 

In  all  disputes  there  are  three  factors  that  enter  into  the 
selection  of  a  remedy:  First,  the  disposition  of  the  parties; 
second,  the  recognition  of  the  need  for  a  remedy;  and  third, 
the  machinery  through  which  the  desire  for  a  remedy  can  find 
effective  expression. 

We  may  assume  the  existence  of  a  desire,  practically  uni¬ 
versal,  for  the  peaceful  settlement  of  all  disputes  between  labor 
and  capital.  Even  in  international  affairs  there  is  no  doubt  that 
a  large  majority  of  the  people  of  all  civilized  nations  oppose  war 
except  as  a  last  resort.  They  prefer  peaceful  means  to  the 
arbitrament  of  war,  but  it  is  difficult  for  the  popular  will  to  find 
expression. 

Secret  diplomacy  has  concealed  the  earlier  stages  of  interna¬ 
tional  controversies  so  that  the  people  relied  upon  to  do  the 
fighting  have  been  kept  in  ignorance  until  a  sudden  call  to  arms 
paralyzed  the  peace  sentiment  and  subjected  those  who  protested 
to  the  charge  of  treason.  Then,  too,  long-standing  race  prej¬ 
udices,  prejudices  between  nations,  and  sometimes,  religious 
prejudices,  have  made  it  easy  for  militarists  to  inflame  the  pas¬ 
sions  that  developed  local  clashes  into  armed  conflicts.  Manu¬ 
facturers  who  make  fortunes  out  of  war  contracts  are  quick  to 
take  advantage  of  the  ignorance  of  the  people  and  of  popular 
passions,  and  their  profits  are  so  large  that  they  can,  when  they 

1  William  J.  Bryan.  The  Commoner.  20:3.  January,  1920. 


244 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


find  it  necessary,  control  such  newspapers  as  are  purchasable. 
To  these  disadvantages  under  which  the  masses  labor  may  be 
added  the  undemocratic  character  of  many  governments  and  the 

political  influence  of  the  military  parties. 

*  *  * 

The  hope  of  universal  peace  rests  upon  the  progress  now 
being  made  along  all  the  lines  above  mentioned.  Secret  diplom¬ 
acy,  or  at  least  the  secret  treaty,  is  abolished  by  the  league  of 
nations;  prejudice  will  decrease  as  general  intelligence  increases 
and  as  a  reduction  of  armaments  lessens  the  force  of  the  ap¬ 
peals  made  by  militarists  and  manufacturers  of  munitions,  while 
the  growth  of  democracy  constantly  increases  the  relative  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  average  man  in  his  government.  And  possibly  the 
greatest  change  of  all  is  the  appearance  of  woman  in  the  arena 
of  politics,  with  her  attachment  for  the  home  to  inspire  her  to 
combat  war,  the  enemy  of  her  home. 

The  league  of  nations  is  launched  upon  the  world  at  a  most 
auspicious  time.  The  late  war,  surpassing  all  previous  conflicts 
in  its  cost,  whether  measured  by  blood,  by  expenditure  of 
money,  or  by  the  mortgage  that  it  lays  upon  the  toil  of  future 
generations,  has  convinced  the  world  that  something  must  be 
done.  The  people  everywhere  are  calling  for  machinery  through 

which  the  desire  for  peace  may  find  expression. 

*  *  * 

The  league  of  nations  furnishes  the  machinery,  and,  fortu¬ 
nately,  the  leading  nations  had  been  prepared  lor  the  plan  by 
their  recent  agreements  with  the  United  States  providing  for 
investigation  of  all  disputes  of  every  kind  and  character  before 
a  resort  to  war.  Whatever  differences  may  exist  as  to  the  de¬ 
tails  of  the  covenant,  a  league  of  nations,  established  for  the 
purpose  of  settling  all  international  disputes  by  peaceful  means, 
is  one  of  the  certainties  of  the  future. 

Likewise,  in  the  matter  of  industrial  disputes  at  home,  we 
may  assume,  I  repeat,  that  the  sentiment  is  practically  unani¬ 
mous  in  favor  of  a  peaceful  settlement  of  such  controversies. 
The  strike  and  the  lockout  are,  in  the  field  of  industry  what  war 
is  between  nations.  Each  is  an  attempt  at  compulsion ;  one 
seeks  to  force  the  employer  to  terms  by  shutting  off  the  labor 
supply  and  the  other  attempts  to  force  employes  to  terms  by 
withdrawing  the  opportunity  of  earning  a  livelihood. 

Neither  can  be  regarded  as  desirable,  even  by  the  side  that 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


245 


employs  it;  it  is  in  the  nature  of  a  last  resort  and  is  only  em¬ 
ployed  when  argument  fails.  And,  even  if  the  strike  and  the 
lockout  were  desired  by  either  party  to  the  dispute,  or  by  both 
parties,  what  of  the  third  party — the  public?  No  strike  can 
DIRECTLY  affect  any  large  percentage  of  the  people,  but  the 

indirect  effect  may  reach  every  one. 

*  *  * 

Take  three  strikes  as  illustrations.  The  coal  strike,  which 
threatened  to  paralyze  a  great  basic  industry  and  shut  off  the 
supply  of  fuel  at  the  beginning  of  winter,  directly  concerned  a 
few  thousand  mine  owners  and  something  like  a  half  million 
mine  workers,  but  it  indirectly  reached  the  firesides  of  a  hun¬ 
dred  millions  of  people  and  the  furnaces  that  furnish  power  for 
all  our  factories.  The  steel  strike,  with  a  comparatively  few 
stockholders  and  few  hundred  thousand  employes,  has  partially 
paralyzed  many  branches  of  industry  and  indirectly  laid  tribute 
upon  a  multitude  of  homes. 

At  one  time  a  railway  strike  seemed  possible ;  that  would 
have  immediately  touched  the  pocket  nerve  of  capitalists  who 
control  twenty  billions  of  railway  stocks  (partly  water)  and 
railroad  bonds,  and  would  have  suspended  the  earning  capacity 
of  nearly  two  million  persons,  but  it  would  have  greatly  incon¬ 
venienced  nearly  fifty  times  as  many  who  patronize  the  rail¬ 
roads.  The  public,  like  the  innocent  bystander,  gets  hurt,  even 
though  the  actual  combatants  are  few  in  number  in  proportion 
to  the  entire  population.  A  whole  nation  desires  peace  in  in¬ 
dustry,  and  the  recent  strikes  and  rumors  of  strikes  have 
directed  public  attention  to  a  great  need,  made  apparent  by  so¬ 
ciety’s  helplessness. 

Now  is  the  opportune  time  to  consider  an  industrial  peace 
plan.  The  harvest  is  ripe,  the  reapers  are  waiting;  machinery 
is  the  need  of  the  hour.  The  peace  plan,  that  has  made  remote 
the  possibility  of  war  between  us  and  the  contracting  nations 
and  now  promises  to  hasten  the  coming  of  universal  and  per¬ 
petual  peace  throughout  the  world,  would  seem  to  offer  the 
easiest  means  of  settling  labor  disputes  before  they  reach  the 
strike  or  lockout  stage.  The  plan  is  simple;  it  provides  for  a 
public  investigation  before  resort  to  any  attempt  at  compulsion 
on  the  part  of  either  capital  or  labor. 

Compulsory  arbitration  does  not  meet  our  industrial  needs 
any  more  than  it  does  our  international  needs.  Before  we 


246 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


adopted  the  plan  providing  for  investigating  all  international 
disputes  we  relied  for  security  on  our  arbitration  treaties, 
twenty-six  in  number,  which  provided  for  the  arbitration  of 
minor  questions;  but  these  treaties  specifically  excluded  from 
arbitration  questions  of  honor  and  independence,  vital  interests 
and  the  interests  of  third  parties — the  very  questions  out  of 
which  wars  grow.  The  peace  plan  upon  which  we  now  rely 
closes  the  gap  and  leaves  no  dispute  out  of  which  a  war  can 
grow  until  after  a  period  of  investigation  sufficient  in  length  to 
permit  passions  to  subside  and  questions  of  fact  to  be  separated 

from  questions  of  honor. 

*  *  * 

So,  in  industrial  controversies,  we  cannot  compel  employers 
to  pay  wages  that  will  be  destructive  of  their  business,  neither 
can  we  compel  wage  earners  to  work  for  insufficient  pay — the 
one  would  be  confiscation  and  the  other  slavery.  And,  in  the 
arbitration  of  industrial  disputes,  it  is  really  a  gamble  upon  the 
bias  of  the  one  man  who  decides  the  controversy.  Arbitration 
boards  are  usually  made  up  of  representatives  of  the  two  sides 
about  equally  divided,  with  one  man,  supposed  to  be  impartial, 
but — as  no  one  is  or  can  be  absolutely  impartial  in  such  matters, 
everything  depends  on  which  side  secures  the  umpire. 

I  am  aware  that  there  are  some  who  will  contend  that  every 
man  OUGHT  to  be  impartial  but  that  which  SHOULD  BE  is 
sometimes  imaginary  rather  than  real.  We  have  to  use  the  ma¬ 
terial  we  have ;  we  cannot  expect  to  find  perfect  men  when  we 
are  in  search  of  arbitrators.  If  we  had  any  perfect  men  in  this 
country  they  would  be  in  such  demand  for  permanent  public 
duties  that  they  could  not  be  spared  for  the  occasional  work  of 
preventing  strikes. 

But,  while  compulsory  ARBITRATION  is  as  impossible  as 
it  is  undesirable,  compulsory  INVESTIGATION  is  not  only  de¬ 
fensible,  but  unobjectionable.  Public  opinion  is  the  final  arbiter 
in  all  matters  in  a  government  like  ours — that  is,  public  opinion 
intelligently  formed  upon  all  the  facts  involved ;  and  how  can 
the  public  form  an  intelligent  opinion  until  it  is  in  possession  of 
the  facts? 

The  time  has  passed  when  either  side  to  a  great  industrial 
controversy  can  demand  judgment  on  a  one-sided  statement  of 
the  differences.  However  convinced  it  may  be  of  the  justness 
of  its  cause,  neither  side  can  foreclose  discussion  and  demand 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


247 


an  immediate  verdict  in  its  favor.  While  every  one  has  a  gen¬ 
eral  bias  011  one  side  or  the  other,  the  great  majority  of  parti¬ 
sans  are  open  to  conviction  and  desire  to  hear  both  sides  before 
the  jury  is  polled. 

The  peace  plan  proposed  meets  all  the  objections  that  can  be 
raised  to  compulsory  arbitration,  provides  for  the  fullest  in¬ 
vestigation,  and  assures  representation  to  both  sides.  The  com¬ 
mission  contemplated  by  the  plan  should  be  a  permanent  board 
of,  say,  three  members ;  two  should  represent  the  two  classes, 
employers  and  employes,  and  the  remaining  member  should  be 
so  disconnected  from  the  two  classes  as  to  reduce  his  bias  to  a 
minimum.  He  should  be  free  from  business  or  social  obliga¬ 
tions  to  either  side,  so  that  he  can  represent  the  public  rather 

than  the  parties  to  the  dispute. 

*  *  *  * 

The  commission  should  be  empowered  to  investigate  upon 
the  request  of  either  party,  and  should  have  authority  to  act  on 
its  own  initiative  in  case  the  feeling  on  both  sides  should  re¬ 
strain  the  parties  from  making  a  request,  and  it  should  have 
ample  power  to  call  witnesses  and  compel  the  submission  of 
papers,  books,  etc.,  bearing  on  the  case.  In  each  case  inves¬ 
tigated  two  members  should  be  added  to  the  board,  one  chosen 
by  each  side,  to  serve  during  the  investigation,  with  authority 
equal  to  the  permanent  members  and  with  equal  prorata  com¬ 
pensation. 

This  would  insure  a  minority  report  if  the  investigation  re¬ 
sulted  in  a  disagreement,  and  each  party  to  the  dispute  would 
have  its  side  fully  presented.  As  the  report  would  not  be  le¬ 
gally  binding  upon  either  side,  but  rest  upon  its  merits,  the 
members  of  the  commission  would  be  even  more  apt  to  strive 
for  equal  and  exact  justice  than  they  would  if,  by  their  findings, 
they  could  settle  the  question  on  the  side  to  which  they  lean. 

With  such  a  tribunal  always  ready  to  act,  the  parties  to  the 
controversy  could  be  restrained  from  strike  or  lockout  for  a 
reasonable  time,  while  the  commission  is  investigating  just  as 
under  the  peace  plan  the  contracting  nations  agree  not  to  resort 
'  to  war  until  after  investigation. 

Public  opinion  would  support  the  majority  report  and  thus 
compel  a  settlement  in  accordance  therewith,  unless  the  reasons 
given  by  the  minority  members  appealed  more  strongly  to  the 
judgment  of  the  public.  The  creation  of  such  a  tribunal  would 


248 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


not  only  furnish  the  machinery  necessary  and  prevent  strikes 
and  lockouts  in  nearly  every  case,  but  the  very  existence  of  such 
a  tribunal  would  tend  to  restore  harmony  between  the  two 
classes,  just  as  an  anticipated  strike  or  lockout  tends  to  create 
discord. 

Such  a  tribunal,  based  upon  fair  principles  and  giving  equal 
consideration  to  the  claims  of  both  sides,  would  also  tend  to 
cultivate  confidence  in  the  government  and  a  respect  for  law, 
while  it  would,  on  the  other  hand,  silence  those  who  seek  a  pre¬ 
text  for  declaiming  against  organized  government. 

I  submit  the  plan  (it  can  be  used  by  states  and  by  com¬ 
munities  as  well  as  by  the  nation)  in  the  belief  that  it  will  con¬ 
tribute  towards  the  end  which  all  good  citizens  have  in  view, 
namely,  the  proper  use  of  a  people’s  government  for  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  the  rights  of  each  citizen  and  the  promotion  of  the 
welfare  of  all. 


BRIEF  EXCERPTS 

We  can  not  and  should  not,  as  a  people,  tolerate  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  a  repetition  of  the  Chicago  railway  strike  of  1894,  or 
the  anthracite  coal  strike  of  1902. — Adams  and  Sumner.  Labor 
Problems,  p  326. 

The  state  and  federal  governments  should  provide  the  ma¬ 
chinery  for  what  may  be  called  the  Compulsory  Investigation 
of  controversies  when  they  arise. — Report  of  the  Anthracite 
Coal  Strike  Commission  of  1902. 

It  would  not  be  slavery  to  limit  the  right  of  even  an  in¬ 
dividual  to  stop  work  on  a  public  utility  any  more  than  it  is 
slavery  to  make  it  illegal  for  a  sailor  to  desert  his  vessel  in  the 
midst  of  a  voya ge.— Outlook  1 14 :  783.  December  13,  1916. 

Under  [voluntary]  arbitration  in  Canada  about  three  per 
cent  of  the  cases  were  settled  by  peaceful  processes  without  the 
cessation  of  work.  Under  the  new  law  [Industrial  Disputes  In¬ 
vestigation  Act]  ninety-seven  per  cent  have  been  settled  peace¬ 
fully  without  cessation  of  work. — Outlook.  94:648.  March  26, 
1910. 

Policemen  and  others,  whose  duties  relate  to  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  justice  and  the  preservation  of  life  and  property,  should 
not  join,  or  retain  active  membership  in,  or  be  'affiliated  with 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


249 


organizations  that  resort  to  the  strike.  This  conclusion  is  based 
upon  the  principle  that  they  should  be  above  any  suspicion  in 
the  public  mind  of  partiality  in  the  discharge  of  their  official 
duties. — Report  of  the  [ second ]  Industrial  Conference  called  by 
the  President,  March  6,  1920.  p.  43. 

I  favor  compulsory  investigation,  believing  that  the  public, 
when  properly  informed,  would  settle  all  of  these  great  ques1- 
tions  between  capital  and  labor. 

I  repeat  that  when  the  facts  have  been  disclosed  as  to  the 
controversy  that  exists  between  capital  and  labor,  between  own¬ 
ers  and  railroad  employees,  I  think  the  strike  will  proceed  no 
further  because  the  party  at  fault  would  necessarily  have  to 
surrender  to  force  of  public  opinion. — Senator  Charles  E. 
Townsend .  Congressional  Record.  December  17,  1919. 

The  public’s  right  to  uninterrupted  street  car  service  is  para¬ 
mount  to  every  other  consideration  involved.  Regardless  of  the 
justice  or  injustice  of  the  employes’  present  demands,  they 
should  not  be  privileged  to  tie  up  local  transportation  in  order 
to  enforce  them.  A  street  car  or  railroad  strike  represents  the 
effort  of  a  small  group  to  club  the  public  into  supporting  their 
demands— an  example  of  intolerable  minority  rule.  Regardless 
of  what  the  law  may  say,  employes  engaged  in  such  an  occupa¬ 
tion  as  the  operation  of  railways  have  no  moral  right  to 
prostrate  the  transportation  of  a  nation  or  a  community,  pro¬ 
vided  that  machinery  has  been  established  to  give  them  ample 
hearing. — Cleveland  Plain  Dealer.  April  30,  1920. 

The  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act  seems  to  be  gain¬ 
ing  support  in  Canada  with  longer  experience,  and  has  very 
few  opponents  outside  of  labor  ranks.  The  labor  opposition  is 
strongest  where  socialism  is  strongest.  There  seems  to  be  less 
unqualified  opposition  to  the  law  among  the  members  of  the 
unions  than  among  the  officials,  but  this  is  stated  as  a  con¬ 
jecture  rather  than  as  an  assured  fact.  The  act  has  afforded 
machinery  for  settling  most  of  the  disputes  that  have  occurred 
in  the  industries  to  which  it  applies ;  but  in  some  cases  it  has 
postponed  rather  than  prevented  strikes,  and  in  other  cases 
strikers  have  defied  law  with  impunity. — Victor  S.  Clark.  Bul¬ 
letin.  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor.  20 : 29.  January,  1910. 

No  effort  has  been  in  the  past  to  punish  a  large  body  of 
men  for  striking.  This  raises  the  question  of  the  value  of  the 
penal  provisions  of  the  law.  It  is  argued  that  if  the  act  does 


250 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


not  put  strikers  in  jail  and  subject  offending  employers  to 
heavy  fines,  these  provisions  are  useless.  But  even  though 
violations  are  seldom  prosecuted,  neither  strikers  nor  employers 
dare  defy  the  law  of  the  land  in  disputes  prominently  before 
the  public  and  affecting  the  prosperity  and  comfort  of  a  large 
body  of  citizens.  By  doing  so  they  would  put  a  powerful 
weapon  in  the  hands  of  their  opponents,  and  they  would  fatally 
prejudice  their  case  in  the  high  court  of  public  opinion. — Victor 
S.  Clark.  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  of  Political  Science.  7: 
15-16.  January,  1917. 

The  employes’  right  to  strike  and  the  employer’s  right  to 
lock  out  his  employes  are  both  secondary  to  the  public’s  right  to 
service.  Since  the  public  interest  is  paramount,  it  follows  that 
public  opinion  is,  and  should  be,  a  potent  influence  for  the 
settlement  of  labor  disputes.  Therefore,  machinery  should  be 
set  up  to  develop  and  crystallize  this  opinion  according  to  estab¬ 
lished  facts,  and  until  these  facts  have  been  established  neither 
party  should  resort  to  strike  or  lockout.  In  essential  industries, 
government  services  and  public  utilities  prompt  settlement  of 
disputes  should  be  effected  by  the  efforts  of  both  parties.  The 
public’s  right  to  uninterrupted  service  during  the  period  of  set¬ 
tlement  is  a  primary  consideration. — From  Declaration  of  the 
Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce.  Survey.  43 :  749.  March  13, 
1920. 

So  far  as  the  strike  in  general  industry  is  concerned  there  is 
general  concession  that  it  is  a  legitimate  and,  within  bounds  of 
moderation,  even  an  essential  instrument  of  self-defense  and 
advancement  under  the  competitive  system  of  private  industry. 
But  in  another  field  the  strike  takes  on  a  darker  coloring.  In 
public  service  and  in  industries  the  continuous  operation  of 
which  is  essential  to  public  safety,  the  strike  becomes  a  form  of 
action  with  which  the  public  must  concern  itself  for  self-preser¬ 
vation.  Democracy  cannot  survive  if  it  is  to  be  constantly  at 
the  mercy  of  a  small  minority.  It  ceases  to  be  a  democracy  un¬ 
der  such  conditions  and  falls  prey  to  a  new  form  of  autocracy 
or  oligarchy.  Our  political  liberty  becomes  as  nothing  if  it  can¬ 
not  protect  society  from  this. — Chicago  Tribune,  March  21, 
1920. 

It  will  be  necessary  sometime  to  put  the  railway  services  in 
a  position  where  the  concerted  strike  will  be  impossible.  Rail¬ 
roads  are  of  just  as  essential  a  public  character  as.  are  forces  of 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


251 


policemen  and  firemen,  or  the  postal  clerks  and  carriers.  The 
strike  is  not  a  proper  weapon  to  be  used  by  men  in  such  employ¬ 
ments.  A  concerted  railroad  strike  would  necessitate  the  opera¬ 
tion  of  railroads  by  military  power,  in  order  to  supply  the  people 
of  cities  with  food  and  other  necessities.  Since,  however,  the 
strike  is  not  morally  permissible  under  these  circumstances, 
there  is  the  more  reason  why  the  public  should  see  that  railway 
servants  have  exceptionally  good  treatment  as  regards  wages 
and  all  conditions  of  employment  and  service.  On  reasonable 
terms,  and  at  proper  intervals,  they  should  have  opportunity  to 
secure  arbitration  of  all  well-formulated  claims  and  demands. — 
Review  of  Reviews.  48:  146.  August ,  1913. 

PROCEEDINGS  UNDER  THE  INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES  INVESTI¬ 
GATION  ACT  OF  CANADA1 


Calendar  year 

Number  of 
applications 

Number  boards 
granted 

Strikes  not 
averted  or  ended 

1907 — (9  months) 

25 

22 

1 

.  1908 

27 

25 

i 

1909 

22 

21 

4 

1910 

28 

23 

4 

1911 

21 

16 

4 

1912 

16 

16 

3 

1913 

18 

15 

1 

1914 

18 

18 

1 

I9IS 

15 

12 

1 

1916 

29 

16 

1 

1917 

53 

37 

1 

1918 

93 

59 

2 

1919 — (3  months) 

9 

7 

0 

374 

287 

24 

1  Twelfth  [1919]  Report  of  the  Registrar  of  Boards  of  Conciliation  and 
Investigation,  p.  76. 


252 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


PROCEEDINGS  UNDER  THE  INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES  INVESTI¬ 
GATION  ACT  OF  CANADA,  MARCH  22,  1907  TO  MARCH  31,  19 191 

No.  of  disputes  No.  of  strikes 
referred  under  not  averted 
Industries  affected  Act  or  ended 

I.— DISPUTES  AFFECTING  MINES,  TRANS¬ 
PORTATION,  PUBLIC  UTILITIES  AND 
WAR  WORK:— 

(1)  Mines: — 

(a)  Coal  .  49  6 

(b)  Metal  .  17  5 

(c)  Asbestos  .  1  0 


Total  Mines  .  67  11 


(2)  Transportation  and  Communication: — 

(a)  Railways  .  126  7 

(b)  Street  railways  .  55  3 

(c)  Express  .  7  o 

(d)  Shipping  .  16  o 

(e)  Telegraphs  .  9  1 

(f)  Telephones  .  4  0 

Total  Transportation  and  Communi - 

cation  .  217  11 


(3)  Public  Utilities: — 

(a)  Light  and  Power  .  8  o 

(b)  Elevators  .  1  0 

Total  Public  Utilities  .  9  o 

(4)  War  Work  .  30  1 

Total  Mines,  Transportation,  Public - 

Utilities  and  War  Work .  323  23 


II.— DISPUTES  NOT  FALLING  CLEARLY 
WITHIN  THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  ACT:— 

*  (a)  Public  Utilities  under  Provincial  or 

Municipal  Control  .  28  1 

(b)  Miscellaneous  .  23  0 

Total  disputes  not  falling  clearly — — - 

within  the  scope  of  the  Act .  51  1 

Total  all  classes  .  374  24 


and  Investigation,  p.  75. 


NEGATIVE  DISCUSSION 


STATEMENT  OF  SAMUEL  GOMPERS1 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  of  the 
subject  of  a  general  investigation  into  the  cost,  into  the  sub¬ 
jects  of  rights,  operation,  constitutional  guaranties,  and  all  there 
can  really  be  no  objection.  I  have  in  mind  the  fact  that  at  a 
meeting  of  the  executive  council  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  a  resolution  was  adopted  pledging  the  brotherhoods  the 
cooperation  and  support  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
in  the  effort  to  establish  the  eight-hour  workday  in  the  rail¬ 
road  service,  and  another  resolution  adopted  by  our  council 
against  any  form  of  compulsory  arbitration  with  compulsory 
award,  or  in  any  way  that  would  take  away  from  the  men  of 
the  railroad  service  the  rightful  ownership  of  themselves. 

The  individual,  industrially,  has  lost  his  individuality  in 
modern  times.  He  is  simply  a  cog  in  the  great  wheel  of  indus¬ 
try,  and  all  of  the  workers,  as  cogs,  operate  in  cooperation 
with  each  other,  and  when  that  is  true  individual  right  is  gone. 
How  can  individual  workmen  resent,  or  an  individual  work¬ 
man  resent,  any  wrong  or  injustice? 

The  man  who  works  on  a  railroad  for  a  long  time,  as  a  rule, 
is  unfitted  for  any  other  service.  He  has  got  to  apply  for 
work  in  the  railroad  service  upon  other  lines,  and  with  the 
combination  of  the  managers  of  the  railroads  an  individual 
workman  has  a  splendid  chance  of  establishing  and  maintaining 
his  industrial  rights. 

I  understand  the  purpose — that  is,  if  enacted  into  law  the 
men  will  be  stayed  from  acting  in  concert  until  the  commission 
has  made  its  investigation.  But  in  the  meantime  concerted  ac¬ 
tion  to  stop  work  is  unlawful  and  punishable. 

In  other  words,  an  American  citizen,  American  workers, 
have  the  right  not  to  be  compelled  to  work  against  their  will. 

1  Statement  of  Samuel  Gompers,  President  of  the  American  Federa¬ 
tion  of  Labor,  at  the  hearing  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Interstate 
Commerce,  August  31,  1916. 


254 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Involuntary  service  can  not  be  enforced  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  yet  when  5,  or  10,  or  500  or  5,000 
propose  to  exercise  their  constitutional,  guaranteed  right  to  do 
a  thing  it  is  made  unlawful,  and  they  are  compelled  to  give 
involuntary  service. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  may  be  a  very  fond 
wish  to  tie  men  to  their  work,  but  we  have  been  taught  some¬ 
thing  in  these  United  States,  both  as  natives  and  as  naturalized, 
citizens ;  that  is,  that  there  are  some  rights  to  which  the  mas¬ 
ses  of  the  people  are  entitled,  and  I  can  not  conceive  of  their 
giving  up  those  rights  without  a  protest,  an  emphatic  protest. 
You  may  make  strikes  illegal,  may  make  strikers  criminal, 
but  you  are  not  going  to  avert  strikes  when  strikes  are  neces¬ 
sary  in  order  to  express  the  needs  of  America’s  workers  for  a 
higher  and  a  better  consideration  of  their  rights  and  of  stand¬ 
ards  of  the  service  which  they  give  to  society  and  without  which 
society  itself  is  imperiled. 

The  experience  of  the  countries  that  have  attempted  com¬ 
pulsory  arbitration  and  the  enforcement  of  a  compulsory 
award,  the  experience  of  countries  in  which  compulsory  in¬ 
vestigation  and  the  stay  of  the  workers  from  quitting  their 
employment,  has  been  all  to  the  detriment  of  the  principle  in 
itself  of  compulsion  and  a  denial  of  the  right  of  the  workers 
to  leave  their  employment. 

In  the  Australasian  countries  the  effort  has  gone  to  the  fur¬ 
thest  limit,  and  I  may  say  to  you  gentlemen  that  the  Austra¬ 
lian  compulsory  arbitration  act  was  put  into  existence  after  a 
strike  almost  analogous  to  the  position  now  before  us,  except 
that  this  is  attempted  before  a  strike,  before  a  proposed  strike, 
and  out  of  the  desire  to  tie  the  men  to  their  work;  out  of  a 
desire,  by  law,  to  make  strikes  and  lockouts  impossible — the  de¬ 
nial  of  rights  guaranteed  not  only  by  time  and  Constitution  but 
by  common  concept  have  been  taken  away. 

In  Colorado  there  exists  a  law  that  makes  it  unlawful  for 
men  to  strike  pending  an  investigation  of  the  dispute.  That 
law  has  been  not  only  abortive  in  preventing  strikes,  it  has  not 
only  injured  the  interests  of  the  workers  and  interfered  and 
denied  their  rights,  but  it  has  resulted  in  a  revolution  of  feel¬ 
ing  to  such  an  extent  that  at  the  convention  of  the  organized 
workers  of  Colorado,  the  Colorado  State  Federation  of  Labor 
last  month  passed  a  resolution,  with  but  one  dissenting  vote, 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


255 


against  the  proposition,  demanding  the  repeal  of  that  law  at 
the  hands  of  the  legislature  of  that  State. 

I  have  a  copy  of  the  Colorado  State  Federation  of  Labor 
resolutions  and  I  submit  it  as  part  of  my  remarks. 

RESOLUTION  ADOPTED  BY  THE  TWENTY-FIRST  ANNUAL 
CONVENTION  OF  COLORADO  STATE  FEDERATION  OF 
LABOR,  DECLARING  FOR  THE  REPEAL  OF  THE  INDUS¬ 
TRIAL-COMMISSION  LAW. 

The  rights  and  liberties  of  the  wage  earners  of  the  State  of  Colorado 
have,  been  invaded  and  usurped  by  the  enactment  of  the  industrial  com¬ 
mission  law.  The  extensive  powers  and  authority  conferred  upon  the 
three  commissioners  provided  for  in  this  law  transcends  and  overshadows 
the  power  and  authority  conferred  upon  all  other  political  departments 
of  the  State. 

The  thirteenth  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  provides  that 
“Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment  for 
crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  exist  with¬ 
in  the- United  States  or  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction.”  In 
contravention  of  this  amendment,  and  in  defiance  of  the  specific  declara¬ 
tion  against  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  the  twentieth  General 
Assembly  of  Colorado  passed  the  industrial-commission  law,  which  makes 
it  a  misdemeanor  for  employees  not  to  give  at  least  30  days’  notice  to 
the  industrial  commission  when  a  change  affecting  conditions  of  employ¬ 
ment  with  respect  to  wages  and  hours  is  desired,  and  provides  that  any 
offender  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine. 

With  an  assumption  of  power  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  legislative 
history,  the  industrial  commission  was  clothed  with  the  power  and  au¬ 
thority  to  override  and  set  aside  the  first  amendment  to  the  Federal 
Constitution,  which  provides  that,  “Congress  shall  make  no  laws  *  *  * 

abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press  or  of  the  right  of  the 
people  to  peacefully  assemble  and  petition  the  Government  for  redress 
of  grievances.  In  defiance  of  this  amendment  the  Colorado  General 
Assembly  empowered  the  industrial  commission  to  forbid  any  person  “To 
incite  or  encourage  in  any  manner  any  employee  to  go  or  continue  on 
strike  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  industrial-commission  law,”  and 
provided  a  penalty  of  fine  and  imprisonment  should  such  employee  exer¬ 
cise  his  rights  under  the  Federal  Constitution. 

The  law  further  empowers  the  industrial  commission  to  invade  the 
meetings  of  wage  earners,  thus  destroying  the  right  of  free  assemblage. 

The  industrial  commission  is  given  the  further  power  of  exercising 
unlimited  authority  over  the  various  departments  of  the  State  govern¬ 
ment  which  either  directly  or  remotely  deal  with  the  conditions,  health, 
or  activities  of  the  wage  earners  of  the  State. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  has,  during  its  entire  existence, 
exercised  its  great  influence  against  the  delegation  of  any  of  the  per¬ 
sonal  rights  of  the  working  people  to  political  commissions,  for  these 
rights  are  fundamental  and  deal  with  their  lives  and  liberties. 

Government  by  commission  is  not  a  government  of  or  b”  the  people 
and  is  a  menace  not  only  to  the  welfare  of  the  wage  earners  but  to 
the  people  as  a  whole. 

The  industrial  commission  is  not  directly  responsible  to  the  people 
of  the  State,  and  the  power  and  authority  placed  in  its  hands  is  not  in 
consonance  with  the  spirit  of  a  republican  form  of  government. 

The  fundamental  reasons  underlying  the  organizations  of  labor  are 
found  in  the  almost  universal  injustice  inflicted  upon  the  wage  earners. 
Alleged  economists,  unfair  employers,  scheming  politicians  and  corrupt 
courts  have  sought,  by  their  machinations  and  specious  arguments,  to 
define  labor  power  as  property  or  as  a  commodity.  The  Sherman  anti¬ 
trust  law,  passed  in  1890,  was  framed  for  the  specific  purpose  of  regu¬ 
lating  aggregations  of  capital,  but  labor  organizations  were  the  first 
attacked  as  illegal  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade.  For  24  years  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  heroically  fought  to  secure  legislation 
containing  a  specific  provision  drawing  a  clear  line  of  demarcation  be¬ 
tween  human  and  property  rights.  The  passage  of  the  labor  provisions 


256  COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


of  the  Clayton  antitrust  law,  containing  that  now  famous  declaration, 
“The  labor  of  a  human  being  is  not  a  commodity  or  article  of  commerce,” 
was  the  result  of  its  efforts  to  restore  to  the  wage  earners  their  rights 
guaranteed  to  them  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Almost  immediately  following  the  passage  of  this  Federal  law,  the 
Colorado  General  Assembly  placed  upon  its  statute  books  the  industrial- 
commission  law,  >  hich  arrogantly  defies  the  legislation  enacted  by  the 
Federal  Congress. 

The  laboring  people  of  the  State  of  Colorado  do  not  propose  to  sub¬ 
missively  submit  to  this  invasion  of  their  rights.  We  resent  the  impu¬ 
tation  that  we  are  not  loyal  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
State  of  Colorado,  and  that  it  is  necessary  that  we  be  restrained  from 
exercising  any  right  guaranteed  to  every  other  citizen.  Upon  every 
page  of  history  there  is  written  the  wrongs  committed  against  labor,  and 
wherever  it  has  had  the  courage  and  independence  to  assert  its  rights 
and  to  exercise  its  economic  and  political  power,  there  has  always  fol¬ 
lowed  subtle  schemes  of  which  the  industrial-commission  law  is  a  coun¬ 
terpart,  to  deprive  the  wage  earners  of  their  rights  and  liberties. 

So  far  the  power  conferred  upon  the  industrial  commission  has  been 
cautiously  employed,  with  the  evident  purpose  in  view  of  securing  the 
support  of  the  wage  earners.  With  adroitness  and  clever  argument  the 
industrial-commission  law  has  been  advertised  in  other  States  by  its  sup¬ 
porters  as  a  new  solution  of  the  labor  problem.  The  men  and  women 
of  labor,  whose  bodies  bear  the  imprint  of  industry’s  scars,  are  assured 
that  _  their  rights,  liberties,  and  interests  are  safe  in  the  hands  of  this 
political  commission.  The  wisdom  and  judgment  of  the  officials  of  labor, 
acquired  by  long  experience,  are  lightly  waived  aside  by  these  new 
guardians  of  labor’s  vital  interests.  Already  flushed  with  the  wisdom 
of  still  greater  power,  the  industrial  commission,  through  its  votaries, 
are  clamoring  for  still  more  power,  although,  according  to  the  terms  of 
the  law,  every  statute  in  the  State  which  relates  directly  or  indirectly 
to  labor  comes  under  the  power  and  authority  of  the  industrial  com¬ 
mission. 

Therefore,  it  is  plainly  evident  that  the  organized  labor  movement 
of  the  State  of  Colorado  must  immediately  prepare  to  protect  itself 
against  this  invasion  of  its  rights  and  liberties.  The  continuation  of  the 
industrial  commission  law  will  eventually  strip  from  the  workers  of  this 
State  every  right  which  they  now  enjoy,  and  will  destroy  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  trade-unions  and  make  of  the  working  people  mere 
vassals. 

The  industrial  commission  has  already  made  a  record  which  challenges 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

The  industrial  commission  law  places  in  the  hands  of  three  men 
(whose  experience  deprives  them  of  a  full  or  even  a  partial  knowledge 
of  the  great  struggle  of  the  wage  earners)  the  destiny  of  the  working 
people  of  this  State.  In  fact,  our  entire  lives  would  be  dominated  and 
controlled  by  three  men. 

The  influence  which  placed  this  law  upon  the  statute  books  of  the 
State  of  Colorado  is  the  same  influence  that  defied  the  eight-hour  law 
in  the  coal  mines  and  was  responsible  for  the  coal  miners’  strike. 

It  is  the  same  influence  that  denied  the  right  of  organization  to  the 
coal  miners  of  the  State. 

It  is  the  same  influence  that  made  it  necessary  for  Congress  to  select 
a  special  committee  of  investigation  to  bring  to  public  light  the  indignities 
and  the  brutality  exercised  by  the  coal  operators  in  the  southern  fields. 

It  is  the  same  influence  that  sought  to  sacrifice  the  life  of  John  R. 
Lawson  because  he  championed  the  cause  of  the  striking  coal  miners. 

It  is  the  same  influence  that  snuffed  out  the  lives  of  the  women  and 
children  of  Ludlow. 

It  is  the  same  influence  that  caused  the  present  governor  of  this  State 
to  declare  in  the  public  press  that  if  the  smelter  men  on  strike  in  Lead- 
ville  continued  their  protest,  the  military  arm  of  the  State  would  be 
employed  to  drive  them  back  to  work. 

It  is  the  same  influence  that  converted  Huerfano  County  into  a  caldron 
of  corruption,  and  rendered  unsafe  the  lives  of  its  citizens,  unless  they 
blindly  submitted  to  the  absolute  dictation  of  corporation  gunmen. 

It  is  the  same  influence  that  sought  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  the 
citizenship  generally  by  publicity  bureaus. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


25  7 


It  is  the  same  influence  that  is  employing  every  effort  to  securely 
fasten  this  law  upon  the  wage  earners  of  this  State  in  order  that  its 
influence  may  play  its  part  in  subjugating  the  workers  of  other  States. 

In  fact,  the  wage  earners  of  this  State  are  fully  cognizant  of  the 
reasons  for  the  introduction  and  passage  of  this  law,  and  the  influences 
and  desires  of  those  who  were  responsible  for  its  enactment. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  and  with  a  full  confidence  in  the  courage, 
loyalty,  and  ability  of  the  wage  earners  of  this  State,  the  State  feder¬ 
ation  of  labor,  in  twenty-first  annual  convention  assembled,  does  hereby 
declare : 

That  the  workers  will  not  relinquish  the  right  to  strike  whenever 
and  wherever  that  course  may  be  deemed  advisable  by  the  men  and 

women  of  labor.  The  right  to  strike  is  the  only  distinguishing  mark 
between  free  men  and  slaves,  and  we  shall  unflinchingly  make  every 
sacrifice  to  retain  our  freedom. 

That  we  shall  resist  to  the  uttermost  any  attempt  upon  the  part  of 
the  industrial  commission  to  wrest  from  us  any  of  those  rights  and 

liberties  guaranteed  by  the  organic  law  of  our  country. 

That  the  unqualified  repeal  of  the  industrial-commission  law,  every 
section  and  paragraph,  shall  be  made  the  paramount  issue  of  the  com¬ 
ing  campaign,  and  that  we  shall  hold  to  strict  accountability  the  men 

and  political  parties  of  Colorado  who  and  which  ask  for  the  suffrage  of 
the  citizens  of  our  State.  > 

That  the  workmen’s  compensation  law  be  amended  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  provide  for  officers  to  administer  that  law. 

Conscious  of  the  great  wrong  committed  in  attempting  to  deprive 
the  wealth  producers  of  this  State  of  their  rights  and  liberties,  yet  un¬ 
daunted  in  our  nght  for  justice,  freedom,  democracy,  and  humanity,  we 
confidently  submit  our  course  to  the  sympathetic  consideration  and  co¬ 
operation  of  our  fellow  workers  and  fellow  citizens  of  Colorado. 

Adopted  August  17,  1916. 

In  Canada,  under  the  law  of  which  the  pending  bill  is  prop¬ 
erly  a  replica,  Mr.  Garretson  has  already  referred  to  several 

instances.  Let  me  say,  in  one  instance  an  American  officer  sent 

the  benefits  provided  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  to  the  representative  of  the  general  organ¬ 
ization  in  Canada,  and  when  he  undertook  to  pay  these  coal 

miners  the  benefits  for  which  they  had  contributed  before  any 

trouble  arose,  he  was  haled  before  the  courts  and  punished. 

At  present  in  Hamilton,  Ontario,  the  machinists  are  on 
strike  to  enforce  an  award  under  the  act  and  compulsory  in¬ 
vestigation  and  expression  of  opinion  of  the  commission.  The 
commissioners  refused  publicity  even  to  the  conditions  of  the 
investigation  and  the  conditions  of  labor. 

The  Hydro-Electric  Co.,  of  Toronto  recently  rejected  an 
award.  The  electricians  struck  to  enforce  the  award,  and,  be¬ 
cause  of  the  time  the  companies  had  to  gather  strike  breakers 
and  to  prepare  for  any  eventuality,  the  men  were  defeated.  It 
may  not  be  amiss  to  say  that  in  Canada  this  compulsory  in¬ 
vestigation  act,  a  stay  of  the  rights  of  the  workers  to  leave 
their  employment,  is  not  called  by  the  name  of  its  author;  it 
is  no  longer  called  the  LeMeaux  act;  it  is  called  the  “lemmon 
act.” 


258 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Now,  I  think  that  I  have  the  right  to  say  that  I  have,  with 
my  fellows,  endeavored  to  be  of  service  to  our  people  and  to 
help  avoid  and  evade  strikes  and  industrial  conflicts.  I  think  I 
am  justified,  without  any  appearance  of  vanity,  to  say  that  I 
have  contributed  something,  that  I  have  contributed  as  much  as 
any  other  man  in  America  to  try  to  avoid  strikes.  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man  and  gentlemen,  there  are  some  things  that  are  worse  than 
strikes.  Manhood  which  has  been  deteriorated  and  undermined 
when  it  comes  to  the  question  of  giving  compulsory  service  is 
of  far  greater  importance  than  a  strike.  The  history  of  the 
world  for  centuries  has  been  to  make  the  workers  free.  The 
four  years  of  Civil  War,  costing  hundreds  of  thousands  of  the 
best  blood  of  our  country  at  the  time  on  both  sides  was  fought 
out  in  order  that  slavery  should  be  abolished. 

What  is  the  difference  between  a  slave  and  a  free  workman? 
The  slave  must  work  when  his  master  wills,  and  when  the 
State  behind  the  master  directs  and  enforces  that  will  and 
whim.  What  constitutes  freedom  of  men  that  work  except  that 
they  own  themselves  and  have  the  right  to  determine  when  they 
will  or  will  not  work? 

I  do  not  undertake  now,  and  will  not  undertake  at  any 
time,  to  underestimate  the  suffering  which  will  come  to  many 
and  the  inconvenience  which  all  will  suffer  if  a  strike  is  inau¬ 
gurated  on  the  railroads.  But  I  ask  you  gentlemen — we  have 
got  to  live  as  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  when  that 
strike  is  gone  and  is  over  and  it  is  a  part  of  history — shall  we 
then  find  upon  the  statute  books  of  the  United  States  a  law  that 
for  one  moment  declares  that  a  man  may  not  fold  his  arms  and 

say,  “I  will  not  work,”  or  to  find  that  when  he  and  two  or 

more  others  shall  agree  that  they  will  fold  their  arms,  that 

thereby  they  have  become  criminals  and  susceptible  to  be  tried 

and  convicted  and  sentenced  to  imprisonment?  Such  a  con¬ 
dition  is  intolerable  and  in  conflict  with  the  principles  of  a  free 
republic. 

I  trust  that  this  legislation  will  not  be  enacted  by  the  Con¬ 
gress  of  the  United  States.  It  is  too  serious  a  question.  It 
is  so  fundamentally  repugnant  to  every  conception  of  human 
liberty  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  should  stay  its 
hand  and  not  attempt  to  go  back — go  back  to  its  history  since 
its  existence  in  so  far  as  white  workmen  are  concerned,  and 
since  the  proclamation  of  independence  and  .the  adoption  of 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


259 


the  thirteenth  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  abolishing  human  slavery. 

The  interpretation  of  the  Sherman  antitrust  law  by  the 
courts  of  our  country  by  which  that  law  was  made  applicable 
to  the  voluntary  associations  of  the  workers,  organized  not  for 
profit,  has  been  reversed  by  the  solemn  enactment  of  certain 
provisions  in  the  Clayton  law  and  the  phrase,  though  it  may  be 
seemingly  a  phrase,  yet  the  phrase  is  a  declaration  enacted  into 
the  law  of  the  United  States,  the  first  sentence  of  section  6  of 
the  Clayton  Act  declares  that  the  labor  of  a  human  being  is  not 
a  commodity  or  an  article  of  commerce.  That  language  is  quite 
familiar  to  the  Senator  who  sits  at  your  left,  Mr.  Chairman — 
Senator  Cummins ;  it  is  his  language  which  was  incorporated  into 
that  law.  And  you  undertake  by  the  provisions  of  this  measure 
now  under  consideration  to*  repeal  in  effect  that  declaration 
and  the  provisions  of  that  law,  and  you  make  of  the  labor  of 
a  human  being  a  commodity  or  an  article  of  commerce,  and 
undertake  to  determine  by  law,  with  all  its  punishment,  that 
the  labor  of  human  beings  shall  be  regarded  as  a  commodity 
and  be  held  in  abeyance  and  stay,  the  human  being  to  stay  his 
activity,  and  compel  him  to  work  for  a  particular  period  against 
his  will. 

I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  under  the  provisions  of  the  bill — I  an¬ 
ticipate  that,  of  course,  its  provisions  are  subject  to  change  and 
to  meet  any  technical  objection  which  may  be  urged — I  am  not 
urging  the  technical  objections;  I  am  urging  fundamental  ob¬ 
jections. 

We  shall  suppose — and  I  hope  I  shall  not  have  justification 
for  verification — that  you  will  enact  this  law,  and  you  say  that 
the  companies  and  the  men  shall  stay  their  activities  and  not 
act  in  concert,  but  each  for  his  own  side — that  is,  to  inaugu¬ 
rate  a  lockout  or  to  inaugurate  a  concerted  cessation  of  work. 
Now,  take  any  of  the  railroad  companies,  or  all  of  them,  if  you 
please,  and  the  president  and  the  vice  presidents  and  the 
general  managers  and  the  superintendents  shall,  after  you  have 
enacted  the  law,  resign  rather  than  obey  the  provisions  of  the 
law.  They  will  not  inaugurate  a  strike  or  a  lockout,  but  they 
will  resign  their  positions.  Is  there  any  law  that  you  con¬ 
template  putting  upon  the  statute  books  compelling  them  to 
give  their  services  to  the  companies?  Can  you  enact  a  law  that 
will  prevent  them  from  resigning  their  positions?  And  yet  it 


I 


260  COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 

is  contemplated  that  if  the  men  in  the  active  service  of  operating 
the  railway  trains,  that  if  they  resign  they  are  amenable  to  the 
law. 

Gentlemen,  in  my  judgment  (and  a  judgment  not  biased  or 
confirmed,  but  one  the  result  of  a  lifelong  experience  of  this 
great  industrial  problem)  3rou  are  going  the  wrong  way  in 
trying  to  accomplish  a  desirable  result — to  prevent  and  avoid 
strikes  and  conflicts  of  this  character.  You  are  not  going  to 
prevent  them,  I  repeat.  But  bear  this  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that 
there  is  now  going  on  over  the  whole  civilized  world  a  move¬ 
ment  by  which  the  workers,  the  masses  of  the  people,  are  de¬ 
termined  that  they  shall  have  a  larger  part  in  the  activities  and 
the  privileges  as  well  as  the  responsibilities  of  life — a  devel¬ 
opment  which  is  coming  and  is  now  at  our  doors.  There  is 
but  one  tangible  way  in  which  this  can  be  accomplished,  and 
that  is  through  a  larger  intelligence  and  cohesiveness  among 
the  masses  of  the  people.  A  new  order — the  concept  of  human 
rights  and  human  welfare  and  the  full  recognition  of  equality 
and  equality  of  opportunity — must  be  recognized. 


OPINION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  FEDERATION 

OF  LABOR1 

The  two  essential  features  of  the  President’s  legislative  pro¬ 
posals  were  the  eight-hour  workday  and  compulsory  govern¬ 
mental  institutions  to  regulate  industrial  relations  in  an  occupa¬ 
tion  not  owned  or  operated  by  the  government  itself.  The 
representatives  of  the  railroad  organizations  felt  the  seriousness 
of  the  situation  which  confronted  them.  The  proposal  to  estab¬ 
lish  compulsory  institutions  is  a  matter  that  involves  and  affects 
the  interests  of  all  the  wage-earners  in  the  country.  It  is  a 
revolutionary  proposition  totally  out  of  harmony  with  our  pre¬ 
vailing  institutions  and  out  of  harmony  with  our  philosophy  of 
government.  The  representatives  of  the  Railroad  Brotherhoods 
asked  for  a  conference  with  the  representative  men  of  the  A.  F. 
of  L.  then  in  Washington.  This  conference  was  the  first  held 
in  the  A.  F.  of  L.  new  office  building.  Its  importance  is  evident. 
In  that  conference  the  Railroad  Brotherhoods  were  again  as¬ 
sured  of  the  support  and  the  cooperation  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  in 

1  Report  of  the  Executive  Council,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  to 
the  Thirty-Sixth  Annual  Convention,  November  13,  1916.  p.  67-9. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


261 


their  struggle,  and  in  the  hearing  which  took  place  before  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce  August  31,  upon  the 
legislation  which  President  Wilson  had  recommended  for  enact¬ 
ment  by  Congress,  the  wishes  and  the  demands  of  the  wage- 
earners  were  presented  by  the  representatives  of  the  railroad 
organizations  and  by  the  President  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  The  eight- 
hour  workday  was  secured  for  the  railroad  men  but  the  propo¬ 
sition  providing  for  “compulsory  investigation”  carrying  with 
it  compulsory  service,  was  not  enacted. 

The  bill  introduced  in  Congress  for  the  declared  purpose  of 
preventing  strikes  and  interruption  of  transportation,  is  modeled 
after  the  Canadian  Compulsory  Investigations  Act.  It  provides 
that  during  a  period  when  the  demands  for  changed  conditions 
are  under  consideration  it  would  be  unlawful  for  the  railroad 
workers  to  strike.  During  fhis  specified  period  it  is  the  purpose 
of  this  law  to  compel  railroad  men  to  work  even  against  their 
will. 

This  effort  to  again  subject  wage-earners  to  involuntary 
servitude  has  aroused  the  determined  resistance  of  wage- 
earners  generally.  To  their  declarations  against  involuntary 
servitude  the  proponents  of  the  legislation  have  replied  that 
although  a  strike  would  be  made  illegal  under  the  proposed  law 
and  strikers  criminals,  yet  individual  workers  were  not  deprived 
of  the  right  to  quit  work. 

This  is  a  curious  kind  of  reasoning  that  may  make  an  appeal 
to  those  who  have  no  definite  knowledge  of  industrial  condi¬ 
tions,  but  wage-earners  know  that  individuals  have  ceased  to 
exist  from  the  standpoint  of  modern  industry.  The  individual 
worker  is  a  mere  cog  in  industrial  machinery,  without  voice  in 
determining  conditions  that  affect  his  work  or  his  relations  with 
his  employer,  and  for  an  individual  to  quit  work  would  have 
no  effect  at  all  except  to  leave  him  without  employment.  The 
individual  worker  has  neither  the  power  nor  the  opportunity  to 
secure  redress  for  his  industrial  wrongs  or  to  establish  justice. 

It  is  only  through  organized  effort  that  wage-earners  have 
the  rights  and  opportunities  of  individuals  or  have  any  hope  to 
establish  better  industrial  conditions  and  standards  of  indus¬ 
trial  justice.  It  is  pure  sophistry  that  only  augments  the  sense 
of  injustice  that  wage-earners  may  feel  for  industrial  wrongs  to 
allow  them  by  the  law  the  right  of  individuals  to  quit  work  and 
to  declare  that  they  can  not  agree  with  fellow-workers,  that 
conditions  are  so  bad  that  their  only  hope  of  justice  and  fair 


262 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


dealing  lies  in  agreeing  together  to  quit  work,  that  is,  to  refuse  to 
perform  their  usual  tasks — to  strike. 

The  distinction  between  slaves  and  free  men  is  that  slaves 
must  work  as  their  owners  will.  They  have  no  will  of  their 
own  which  they  can  enforce.  Free  men  are  masters  and  own¬ 
ers  of  their  own  labor  power.  They  can  not  be  compelled  to 
work  against  their  will.  The  exercise  of  their  right  not  to  give 
service  is  at  their  own  peril,  that  is,  loss  of  wages  with  what 
they  may  entail. 

Such  a  law  providing  for  making  criminals  of  men  who 
cease  work  during  the  period  of  compulsory  investigation  of  in¬ 
dustrial  disputes  would  not  prevent  strikes.  It  would  only  make 
strikes  illegal  and  strikers  criminals.  It  would  revive  again 
the  old  conspiracy  laws. 

The  only  protection  that  wage-earners  have  is  the  right  to 
withhold  their  labor  power — the  right  to  strike.  To  deprive 
them  of  this  protection  in  the  name  of  industrial  peace  would 
only  result  in  increasing  their  feeling  of  injustice  and  in  con¬ 
verting  governmental  agencies  and  institutions  into  agencies 
that  bind  them  powerless  against  employers,  however  rapacious 
and  inhumane. 

Compulsory  institutions  to  prevent  strikes  are  not  new.  They 
have  been  tried  in  other  countries  and  found  wanting.  New 
Zealand  established  compulsory  arbitration  in  1894  after  the 
close  of  a  maritime  strike  that  practically  stopped  transporta¬ 
tion  on  the  island.  The  compulsory  arbitration  law  was  a 
desperate  effort  to  protect  the  so-called  public. 

But  strikes  have  not  been  abolished  in  New  Zealand;  many 
bitterly  fought  strikes  have  occurred.  It  was  only  last  year 
that  another  general  strike  occurred,  again  tying  up  transporta¬ 
tion  agencies.  This  strike  was  characterized  by  the  most  cruel 
and  brutal  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  so-called  public.  Many 
farmers  joined  gunmen,  gangsters,  and  professional  strike¬ 
breakers,  armed  themselves  with  pitchforks  and  other  agricul¬ 
tural  implements  and  marched  against  the  striking  workmen. 

Compulsory  institutions  either  in  the  form  of  arbitration  or 
wages  boards  have  been  established  in  all  of  the  states  of 
Australia  and  for  the  Commonwealth,  but  in  none  of  the  states 
or  in  the  Commonwealth  have  strikes  been  abolished  or  is 
there  any  reason  to  feel  that  this  principle  has  solved  the 
industrial  problem. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


263 


The  wage-earners  of  the  United  States  will  oppose  any 
proposition  to  impose  upon  them  compulsory  institutions  which 
disguise  involuntary  servitude.  They  hold  that  the  principle  in¬ 
volved  in  voluntary  institutions  is  the  key  to  personal  and  in¬ 
dustrial  freedom  and  that  this  principle  is  of  more  importance 
to  them  than  any  other  consideration. 

The  immediate  problem  involved  is  a  class  problem  but  the 
principle  involved  in  compulsory  institutions,  even  for  a  class  in 
our  Republic,  is  of  concern  to  the  whole  Republic,  for  we 
know  that  the  Republic  can  not  be  maintained  part  free  and 
part  slave. 

Involuntary  and  compulsory  labor  once  enforced,  even  for  a 
single  hour,  will  not  halt  at  its  temporary  enforcement  but 
will  go  on  and  become  permanent. 

In  human  institutions  when  a  wrongful  course  has  been  pur¬ 
sued  it  inevitably  is  held  or  driven  on  to  its  logical  conclusion 
of  error.  There  then  is  no  retrieving  except  by  a  convulsion 
brought  about  by  a  revolution. 

The  human  labor  power  which  this  law  compels  wage- 
earners  to  give  to  employers  against  their  will  is  inseparable 
from  the  body  and  the  personality  of  the  wage-earners.  It  is 
part  of  the  men  and  women  themselves.  They  can  not  be 
forced  to  work  for  an  employer  against  their  wills  without  re¬ 
ducing  them  to  the  legal  condition  of  slaves  and  transforming 
their  minds  and  spirits  into  those  of  slaves.  No  more  dan¬ 
gerous  proposition  has  ever  been  proposed  than  this  compul¬ 
sory  investigation  measure. 

Problems  of  industrial  justice  and  redress  for  industrial 
wrongs  can  not  be  worked  out  by  laws.  Human  relationships 
are  involved  and  these  can  be  adjusted  on  a  basis  of  equity  only 
through  cooperation  and  mutual  consent.  Neither  employers 
nor  wage-earners  can  be  forced  by  law  to  a  state  of  mind  and 
cooperation  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  rights  and  in¬ 
terests  of  the  human  element  in  production,  transportation,  and 
distribution. 

The  institutions  for  achieving  industrial  justice  and  indus¬ 
trial  freedom  must  be  agencies  that  permit  of  the  freest  and 
best  development  of  the  people,  for  establishment  of  justice  and 
freedom  come  only  through  the  growth  and  development  of 
right  thinking  and  right  living  so  that  opportunities  for  freedom 
and  justice  are  used  for  the  best  interests  of  all. 


264 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


In  only  one  state  of  the  Republic  has  there,  been  a  law  pro¬ 
viding  for  compulsory  investigation  of  industrial  disputes.  That 
law  was  enacted  in  Colorado  in  1915  and  has  been  discussed  in 
the  following  issues  of  the  American  Federationist :  October, 
1915;  December,  1915;  June,  1916;  October,  1916. 

As  a  result  of  their  experiences  under  this  law  the  trade 
unionists  of  Colorado  in  their  convention  held  at  Colorado 
Springs  in  August,  1916,  declared  emphatically  against  the  law 
by  practically  unanimous  vote — that  is,  with  only  one  dissenting 
voice — and  have  pledged  themselves  to  work  for  the  repeal  of 
the  law. 

It  should  be  our  aim  to  aid  our  fellow-workers  of  Colorado 
in  their  laudable  purpose. 

The  action  taken  by  the  Colorado  trade  unionists  in  August 
is  identical  with  that  taken  by  the  Canadian  trade  unionists  in 
their  Trades  and  Labor  Congress  held  in  September,  1916. 

For  many  years  those  who  were  personally  affected  by  the 
operation  of  the  Canadian  law  have  denounced  the  principle 
upon  which  it  was  based,  but  the  opinion  never  became  general 
enough  in  Canada  to  become  the  demand  of  the  organized  labor 
movement  until  the  Canadian  law  had  been  extended  by  an 
administrative  act  to  apply  to  a  greatly  increased  number  of 
workers  in  Canada. 

The  experience  of  the  workers  during  the  past  year  under 
the  extended  application  of  the  Le  Meaux  Act  resulted  in  a 
practically  unanimous  demand  on  the  part  of  the  Dominion 
Congress  that  the  law  be  repealed. 

This  action  of  the  Canadian  trade  unionists  is  dealt  with  in 
the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Canadian  Trades  and  Labor 
Congress  which  is  in  the  appendix  to  this  report. 

We  recommend  that  this  convention  taken  an  unequivocal 
position  against  compulsory  institutions  and  in  favor  of  the 
maintenance  of  institutions  and  opportunities  for  freedom. 


STATEMENT  OF  A.  B.  GARRETSON1 


The  Canadian  industrial  disputes  act  was  originally  known 
as  the  “Le  Meaux,”  and  it  is  very  largely  referred  to  in  that 
language  on  the  other  side.  These  four  organizations  [Railroad 

1  Statement  of  A.  B.  Garretson,  President  of  the  Brotherhood  of 
Railway  Conductors,  at  the  hearing  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Inter¬ 
state  Commerce,  August  31,  1916. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


265 


Unions]  exercise  international  jurisdiction.  We  have  been  Le 
Meauxed  almost  as  often  as  we  have  been  Erdmanized,  and  the 
consequence  is  we  speak  from  knowledge  and  not  from  hear¬ 
say. 

Our  experience  with  the  Le  Meaux  act  is  this :  From  the 
day  it  became  effective  I  was  in  conference,  and  at  a  very 
crucial  point,  with  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railway.  I  was  threat¬ 
ened  with  its  provisions  and  it  was  so  unknown  to  the  presi¬ 
dent  of  the  railway  how  it  might  work  that  that  question  was 
passed  over  on  account  of  what  he  feared  might  come  from  the 
act.  Afterwards  he  expressed  his  regrets  to  me  that  he  had 
not  waited  and  worked  under  it,  while  on  the  other  hand  I 
had  burned  a  few  candles  before  I  learned  what  it  meant.  Here 
is  what  it  has  done:  In  1910  Mr.  Lee,  of  the  Trainmen,  and 
myself  started  the  first  of  these  collective  bargainings  in  the 
East.  We  made  the  same  demand  upon  all  the  railways  east  of 
Chicago  and  north  of  the  Ohio  River,  including  the  Canadian 
lines  east  of  Port  William  and  Winnipeg.  There  were  three 
Canadian  lines,  the  C.  P.  R.,  the  Canadian  Northern,  and  G.  T. 
About,  I  think  it  was,  the  7th  of  January  we  commenced  ne¬ 
gotiations  with  the  first  line  in  the  States.  Our  two  Canadian 
vice  presidents  were  assigned  on  the  day  following  to  take 
charge  of  the  three  Canadian  properties,  leaving  73  on  this  side 
of  the  line.  There  was  no  collective  deal.  We  took  up  each 
line  by  itself.  On  the  first  line  the  Federal  mediators  were 
called  in  and  effected  a  friendly  settlement.  We  then  settled 
the  second  property  on  exactly  the  same  basis  without  any  out¬ 
side  influence.  On  the  third  large  line  in  the  States  we  agreed 
to  arbitrate,  and  the  arbitration  proceeding  on  that  line  con¬ 
sumed  about  90  days.  All  of  the  other  properties  were  handled 
individually.  On  the  19th  day  of  July  following  we  settled  the 
last  of  the  77  properties  in  the  United  States,  and  on  that  night, 
at  6  o’clock  p.  m.,  the  men  left  the  service  of  the  Grand  Trunk 
road,  and  no  one  of  the  three  is  settled  yet. 

That  was  the  effect  of  the  Le  Meaux  act.  The  Grand  Trunk 
road  seized  the  opportunity  to  reenforce  itself  with  the  hope 
of  utterly  defeating  the  demand  of  the  men,  and  it  has  been 
the  record  of  every  industry  to  which  it  has  been  applied  that 
we  are  the  only  men  on  the  other  side  of  the  line  who  con¬ 
formed  to  its  provisions.  The  other  classes  of  labor  utterly 
scorn  acceptance  of  it  unless  they  have  an  object  to  attain. 
They  did  not  investigate.  They  struck  and  would  let  them 


266 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


investigate  afterwards.  It  is  made  of  Canadian  workingmen 
a  nation  of  lawbreakers,  and  it  has  bred  a  contempt  for  the  law 
that  is  a  menace  to  good  citizenship.  Moreover,  the  minister 
of  labor,  who  was  the  real  author  of  that  bill,  W.  L.  McKen¬ 
zie  King,  testified  before  the  late  Federal  Industrial  Commis¬ 
sion  that  there  were  not  jails  enough  in  Canada  to  hold  the 
men  who  had  violated  it. 

There  is  indisputable  testimony.  Is  it  intended  to  make  the 
American  workingmen  a  class  that  have  contempt  for  law,  or 
is  it  intended  by  enactment  to  breed  respect  for  the  law?  That 
is  a  question  that  you  have  to  meet,  because  that  phase  of  it 
is  directly  ahead  of  you,  if  such  legislation  is  either  con¬ 
templated  or  made  effective.  If  you  will  stop  to  remember,  the 
law  is  a  weak  paraphrase  of  a  certain  New  Zealand  enactment, 
where  it  was  said  to  be  successful  and  to  have  the  approval 
of  labor,  and  it  has.  But  what  are  the  conditions  there  where 
it  had  its  birth,  where  it  has  had  successful  application,  when 
contrasted  with  those  places  to  where  it  has  either  been  trans¬ 
planted  or  it  is  proposed  to  transplant  it?  In  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  New  Zealand  every  agency,  exclusive  of  the  administra¬ 
tive,  legislative,  and  judicial,  is  prolabor.  It  is  a  labor  govern¬ 
ment  from  top  to  bottom,  the  only  exception  being  the  Gover¬ 
nor  General ;  but  you  are  sufficiently  conversant  with  the 
status  of  the  English  dependencies  that  are  members  of  the 
imperial  federation  to  know  what  real  power  a  governor  general 
exercises  in  such  a  colony.  He  is  an  interesting  factor  in  a 
Crown  dependency,  but  he  exercises  virtually  no  power  in  any 
vital  question.  It  is  a  law  that  with  all  its  agencies  is  actively 
favoring  labor.  How  different  a  result  can  be  obtained  when 
you  transplant  it  into  Canada,  or  here,  where  every  existing 
agency  of  government  is  passively  or  actively  in  great  accord 
with  the  existing  order.  There  is  the  difference.  Every  un¬ 
seen  influence  that  has  been  referred  to  as  all  the  elements 
of  invisible  government  are  hopelessly  against  it.  Its  fair  ap¬ 
plication  to  many  of  the  agencies  of  a  visible  government  have 
in  the  past  been  likewise  utilized. 

I  do  not  know  that  I  am  a  special  alarmist  in  these  things, 
but  when  a  man  has  gone  through  the  experience  that  I  have  in 
connection  with  questions  of  this  character,  I  will  admit  that 
he  does  not  acquire  as  high  an  opinion  of  the  moral  impulses 
and  the  active  force  of  the  consciences  of  a  good  many  men  as 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


267 


he  started  out  with.  There  may  be  a  great  many  men  who  are 
in  possession  of  one  of  the  qualifications  at  least  that  Caesar 
described  as  necessary  for  his  wife  to  possess.  They  may  be 
pure,  but  there  is  a  great  doubt  if  they  are  above  reproach. 

I  want  to  place  on  record  here  the  protest  of  every  laboring 
man  represented  by  these  brotherhoods  against  the  possible  pas¬ 
sage  of  anything  that  savors  of  making  men  stay  at  work  dur¬ 
ing  the  period  of  what  would  happen  here  with  the  existing 
causes  between  the  railways  and  their  employees,  assuming  for 
the  moment  that  a  certain  amount  of  disintegration  would  take 
place  on  the  other  side,  or  that  they  should  play  the  game 
for  all  it  is  worth. 

NINE  YEARS  OF  THE  CANADIAN  ACT1 

Comment  in  the  United  States  on  the  Canadian  industrial 
disputes  investigation  act  within  the  last  six  months  has  been 
at  once  abundant  and  diverse.  “The  wisest  and  most  success¬ 
ful  labor  legislation  anywhere  adopted,”  Charles  W.  Eliot  wrote 
of  it.  “A  false  step,  reactionary,  un-American,”  is  the  verdict 
of  Samuel  Gompers  on  its  application  to  this  country.  These 
two  remarks  typify  the  discussion  that  has  been  going  on  since 
President  Wilson  first  recommended  to  Congress  that  it  pass  an 
act  similar  in  principle  to  the  Canadian  law. 

In  the  dominion,  as  in  the  United  States,  opinion  is  divided. 
As  in  this  country,  public  officials  and  employers  are  lined  up 
in  favor  of  the  act;  but,  contrary  to  the  status  of  opinion  in 
this  country,  organized  labor  is  not  unanimous  in  condemning 
it;  nor  do  those  groups  of  workers  in  Canada  who  criticize  the 
act,  follow  the  same  line  of  argument  as  their  fellow  workers 
in  this  country. 

Interested  citizens  with  hardly  any  exception  approve  the 
law.  “The  act  has  not  been  a  panacea,”  said  an  editor  of  a 
large  Canadian  newspaper,  “but  it  is  a  pretty  good  thing.  It 
postpones  the  occurrence  of  a  strike  and  gives  sober-minded 
people  a  chance  to  exert  moral  influence  in  bringing  the  two 
parties  to  an  amicable  settlement.”  “The  act  is  based  on  the 
principle  of  arbitration,”  declared  a  prominent  prelate,  “and, 

1  The  experience  with  Compulsory  Investigation  and  its  application  to 
the  United  States.  Ben  M.  Selekman.  Survey  37:746-54.,  March  31,  1917, 


268 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


therefore,  is  a  very  fine  thing.  It  tries  to  do  away  with  the 
strike  altogether,  because  it  brings  the  employer  and  employe 
together  and  in  this  way  helps  toward  an  understanding  be¬ 
tween  them  before  a  strike  may  occur.” 

The  degree  of  public  approval  accorded  the  act  can  be  meas¬ 
ured  effectively  by  the  attitude  of  political  parties.  The  Lib¬ 
eral  Party  is  responsible  for  its  existence,  but  the  Conserva¬ 
tive  Party,  now  in  power,  has  declared,  through  the  minister 
of  labor,  that  it  will  not  repeal  the  law  in  spite  of  some  objec¬ 
tion  from  organized  labor.  It  intends,  rather,  to  amend  and 
perfect  it  in  order  to  insure  more  equitable  and  effective  ope¬ 
ration. 

Executives  of  public  utility  companies  reinforce  the  general 
argument  of  public  men  with  their  own  first-hand  experiences. 
“The  act  is  all  right,”  declared  a  representative  of  the  Ship¬ 
ping  Federation  of  Canada,  “because  it  prevents  hasty  action,” 
and  he  went  on  to  explain  how  it  has  helped  to  maintain  a 
peaceful  relationship  between  longshoremen  and  shippers  in 
Montreal. 

“Now,  suppose  two  or  three  labor  leaders  come  in  here,” 
said  an  executive  of  a  large  railroad,  illustrating  the  benefits  of 
the  act,  “and  they  have  a  thousand  men  behind  them.  They  put 
certain  demands  up  to  us  and  say:  ‘Here,  you,  give  these  to 
us  or  we’ll  strike  by  such  and  such  a  time.’  Well,  we  can  say 
to  them :  ‘There  is  a  disputes  act  on  the  statutes ;  you’ll  have 
to  apply  for  a  board  or  violate  the  law,’  and  thus  they  are  pre¬ 
vented  from  taking  precipitate  action  against  us. 

“We  had  a  recent  case,”  he  continued  by  way  of  concrete 
illustration.  “The  men  demanded  certain  increase  in  their  wages, 
and  we  informed  them  that  we  could  not  grant  the  rates  desired. 
They  then  applied  for  a  board  and  the  report  of  the  board  was 
in  their  favor.  For  a  time  we  hesitated  to  accept  the  report. 
But  after  considering  everything — the  condition  of  the  labor 
market,  etc.,  we  decided  to  accept  the  award,  because  we  knew 
that  if  the  men  struck,  they  would  win.  That’s  the  beauty  of 
the  act.  It  gives  us  a  chance  to  think  over  and  consider  all 
these  things.” 

Mining  operators,  on  the  other  hand,  while  commending  its 
principle,  complain  that  the  act  does  not  work  equitably  for 
them,  because  the  penal  clauses  cannot  be  enforced  against  their 
employes  when  the  latter  violate  the  law. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


269 


So  far  as  labor  is  concerned,  the  Canadian  Federation  of 
Labour  has  gone  definitely  on  record  as  not  only  approving  the 
law  but  favoring  an  extension  of  its  provisions.  At  its  last 
convention  a  resolution  was  adopted  favoring  compulsory 
awards.  This  body  is,  however,  a  small  organization;  its  mem¬ 
bership  consists  of  about  7,000.  The  international  unions,  on 
the  other  hand — those  affiliated  with  labor  organizations  in  this 
country — number  over  100,000  wage-earners.  We  must  look  to 
the  body  representing  these  unions,  the  Trades  and  Labour  Con¬ 
gress,  which  is  affiliated  with  and  corresponds  to  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  and  to  the  railway  unions,  for  a  more  rep¬ 
resentative  body  of  opinion. 

The  maintenance-of-way  employes  and  railroad  telegraphers, 
who  both  singly  and  jointly  have  had  the  greatest  experience 
with  the  act,  are  most  enthusiastic  proponents  of  it.  So  much 
are  they  in  favor  of  it  that,  in  1912,  they  severed  their  affilia¬ 
tion  with  the  Trades  and  Labour  Congress  because,  in  1911,  the 
latter  went  on  record  as  desiring  its  repeal. 

“As  one  who  has  had  possibly  the  greatest  experience  with  the 
act  .  .  .  ,”  A.  B.  Low,  the  former  president  of  the  Order  of  Main- 
tenance-of-Way  Men  wrote  in  1914,  “I  do  not  think  it  would  be  right 
for  me  to  let  an  opportunity  go  by  of  saying  a  good  word  for  the 
act.  .  .  .  We  have  invoked  [it]  in  nine  cases  ...  in  which,  when 

conferences  between  the  officials  and  the  representative  of  the  employes 
failed  to  reach  an  agreement,  a  board  was  applied  for  an  award  made  and 
accepted.  .  .  .  That  our  organization  on  both  sides  of  the  line 

knows  by  practical  experience  the  benefit  of  the  act  may  be  judged  by 
the  fact  that,  at  the  Atlanta  convention  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  our  delegates  introduced  a  resolution  asking  that  similar  legisla¬ 
tion  be  advocated  .  .  .  and  passed  upon  by  the  Senate  and  Con¬ 
gress  of  the  United  States;  and  that,  I  am  sure,  is  the  opinion  of  our 
membership  still.” 

A  prominent  Canadian  official  of  the  Order  of  Railroad 
Telegraphers  spoke  to  me  in  the  same  vein: 

“I  feel  that  the  act  has  been  of  distinct  advantage  to  our  organiza¬ 
tion.  We  have  always  secured  favorable  results  by  reference  of  disputes 
to  boards.  It  has  been  especially  helpful  in  case  of  small  railroads. 
Last  year,  I  negotiated  twentv  trade  agreements.  The  existence  of  the 
act  with  its  threat  of  publicity  was  a  great  help  to  me  in  getting  these 
agreements.  In  not  one  case  did  I  have  to  take  a  strike  vote,  while 
officials  of  my  organization  in  the  states  had  to  take  many  strike  votes 
in  their  efforts  to  get  similar  agreements.” 

The  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen  in 
Canada  is  friendly  to  the  principle  of  the  act,  but  desires  some 
changes  in  it. 

“Certainly  in  the  case  of  public  utilities,”  a  prominent  official  of  the 
Dominion  Legislative  Board  of  this  union  explained,  “the  public  interest 
is  so  vital  that  there  ought  to  be  an  investigation  before  a  strike  or  lock¬ 
out  shall  occur  and  the  public  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  to  acquaint 
itself  with  the  facts.  I  am  absolutely  opposed  to  compulsory  arbitration. 


270 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


That  robs  the  workers  of  all  their  strength.  But  compulsory  investigation 
is  different.  ...  It  may  be  that  the  disputes  act  has  injured  the 
interest  of  the  workers.  But  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  principle 
of  the  act.  If  there  has  been  unfairness  in  its  operation,  the  law  ought 
to  be  amended.” 

The  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers  on  the  other 
hand,  is  a  most  bitter  opponent  of  the  act.  Its  legislative  board 
expressed  itself  in  no  unmistakable  language  last  November  in 
this  resolution:  “That  this  board  do  all  in  its  power  to  have 
the  industrial  disputes  investigation  act  wiped  off  the  statute 
books.” 

“The  opinion  against  it  was  practically  unanimous,”  an  official  of 
this  board  explained.  “While  some  of  the  men  spoke  of  some  minor  bene¬ 
fits,  yet  all  of  them  thought  that,  there  were  no  real  benefits  from  the 
operation  of  the  act.  It  simply  caused  a  lot  of  delay  and  expense.  Many 
times,  when  an  adjustment  committee  would  go  to  the  railroad  manager 
and  say  that  they  wanted  to  negotiate  a  new  agreement,  the  manager 
would  simply  say:  “Go  and  apply  for  a  conciliation  board  under  the  dis¬ 
putes  act.” 

The  Trades  and  Labour  Congress,  which  includes  within 
its  membership  the  other  craftsmen  coming  within  the  scope 
of  the  act,  such  as  miners,  machinists  and  shopmen  employed 
on  railways,  street-car  employes  and  longshoremen,  also  adopted 
an  unfavorable  resolution  at  its  convention  last  November: 
“That  we  go  on  record  as  opposing  the  Lemieux  [disputes]  act 
in  its  entirety.”  This  is  a  change  from  the  original  attitude  of 
this  body.  When  the  act  was  first  introduced  in  Parliament,  it 
had  the  endorsement  of  the  president  of  the  congress,  who  was 
a  member  of  Parliament,  and  in  the  convention  of  that  year  the 
principle  of  the  bill  was  endorsed  by  a  vote  of  eighty-one  to 
nineteen.  In  every  year  following  1907  until  1911,  amendments 
were  asked  for  to  improve  the  administration  of  the  law.  In 
1911,  for  the  first  time,  the  organization  went  on  record  as 
desiring  its  repeal,  by  adopting  the  following  resolution  unan¬ 
imously  : 


Repeal  Asked  for  by  Labor 

“While  this  congress  still  believes  in  the  principle  of  investigation 
and  conciliation,  and  while  recognizing  that  benefits  have  accrued  at 
times  to  bodies  of  workmen  under  the  operation  of  the  Lemieux  [dis¬ 
putes]  act,  yet  in  view  of  decisions  and  rulings  and  delays  of  the  De¬ 
partment  of  Labour  in.  connection  with  the  administration  of  the  act,  and 
in  consequence  of  judicial  decisions  like  that  of  Judge  Townsend,  in  the 
province:  of  Nova  Scotia,  determining  that  feeding  a  starving  man  on 
strike  [ i.c giving  strike  benefits]  contrary  to  the  act,  is  an  offence  under 
the  act:  Be  it  resolved,  that  this  congress  ask  for  the  repeal  of  the  act.” 

In  1912  the  resolution  adopted  in  the  previous  year  was 
repeated  by  the  labor  congress.  In  1913,  1914  and  1915,  the 


I NDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


271 


congress  modified  its  position  and  went  on  record  as  desiring 
amendments,  but  in  1916,  after  long  and  heated  discussion,  they 
asked  again  for  the  repeal  of  the  law. 

“The  principle  of  the  act  is  all  right,”  one  prominent  union  official 
remarked  in  explaining  the  last  action  of  this  body,  “but  you  can  boil 
it  all  down  to  a  question  of  administration.  The  minister  of  labour  has 
refused  to  establish  boards  in  one  or  two  cases  and  that 
men  feel  that  he  is  not  administering  the  law  in  their  favor.” 

“The  delegates  were  so  worked  up  over  their  grievances,”  writes  a 
prominent  representative  of  organized  labor,  also  referring  to  the  reso¬ 
lution  “that  they  were  in  no  mood  to  distinguish  between  the  principle 
of  the  act  and  its  administration.” 

The  extent  to  which  this  is  true  can  be  inferred  from  the 
fact  that  the  delegates  rejected,  without  calm  consideration  or 
criticism,  the  measure  drafted  by  their  own  solicitor  as  a  sub¬ 
stitute  for  the  present  one,  in  order  to  meet  the  objections  pre¬ 
viously  raised  by  them. 

Representatives  of  this  organization,  together  with  members 
of  the  railway  labor  unions,  complain  about  the  difficulty  of 
securing  a  report  favorable  to  labor. 

“The  very  personnel  of  the  boards  are  against  the  interests  of  the 
workers*”  said  an  official  of  the  Machinists’  Union.  “The  chairman 
casts  the  deciding  vote  on  these  boards.  In  ninety-nine  out  of  one  hun¬ 
dred  cases,  the  two  members  appointed  by  the  employer  and  the  men 
cannot  agree  upon  a  mutually  suitable  person.  The  minister  of  labor 
has  to  choose  him,  and  he  usually  selects  a  judge  or  some  professional 
man  whose  point  of  view  is  capitalistic  and  who  has  no  sympathy  for 
the  working  class.  As  a  result,  from  the  very  beginning  the  chances  are 
against  getting  a  favorable  decision  for  the  workers.  The  chairman 
almost  invariably  lines  up  with  the  representative  of  the  employer.” 

It  is  interesting  and  significant  that  hardly  any  of  the  Ca¬ 
nadian  trade  unionists  advance  the  argument  heard  in  this 
country  against  President  Wilson’s  measure — that  such  a  law 
means  compulsory  servitude  for  the  wage-earners.  On  the 
contrary,  most  of  them  approve  of  the  principle  of  the  law, 
and  direct  their  criticism  purely  against  administrative  defects. 
Their  objections  are  chiefly  that  the  minister  of  labor  has  re¬ 
fused  to  appoint  a  board  on  one  or  two  occasions  upon  the 
application  of  a  local  union;  that  delays  have  often  charac¬ 
terized  the  appointment  and  the  hearings  of  the  boards;  and 
that  it  is  difficult  for  them  to  secure  a  favorable  decision. 

Procedure  Under  the  Act — Conciliation 

To  understand  the  objections  of  organized  labor  in  Canada, 
we  ought  to  know  the  nature  of  the  procedure  under  the  act. 
Contrary  to  the  common  conception  in  this  country,  the  dis¬ 
putes  act  has  operated  not  as  a  “compulsory  investigation/’  but 


272 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


as  a  “conciliation”  measure.  That  is,  the  machinery  of  the  law 
is  used  to  bring  together  the  opposing  parties  under  public  aus¬ 
pices  and  to  adjust  their  difficulties.  The  compulsory  features 
of  the  act  which  impose  a  penalty  for  violation  and  the  definite 
rules  of  procedure  have  not  been  emphasized  in  its  administra¬ 
tion.  For  this  reason,  the  use  of  stenographers  at  the  hearings 
held  in  the  presence  of  the  boards  has  always  been  discouraged. 

“Experience  in  the  administration  of  the  act,”  says  the  registrar  of 
the  boards  appointed  under  the  act,  in  one  of  his  reports,  “has  appeared 
to  show  that  it  is  more  effectively  operated  when  freed,  so  far  as  pos¬ 
sible  from  the  formal  procedure  suggestive  of  the  ordinary  judicial 
court.  The  taking  of  sworn  evidence  with  stenographer’s  report  has  been 
particularly  discouraged  as  having  proved  far  from  conducive  to  an 
amicable  adjustment  of  difficulties.  .  .  .  The  most  obvious  virtue 

of  the  act  lies  ...  in  bringing  the  parties  together  before  three 
fellow-citizens  of  standing  and  repute  .  .  .  where  a  free  and  frank 
discussion  of  the  differences  may  take  place  and  the  dispute  may  be 
threshed  out.  .  .  .  Granting  that  such  discussion  and  investigation 

take  place  before  a  strike  or  lockout  has  been  declared  and  that  the 
board  acts  with  proper  discretion  and  tact,  the  chances  are  believed  to 
be  largely  in  favor  of  an  amicable  adjustment.  .  .  .” 

The  minister  of  labor  prefers  to  have  the  law  operate  as  a 
flexible,  conciliation  measure.  He  has  taken  the  position  that 
he  will  not  establish  a  board  when  the  cause  of  the  dispute  is 
the  desire  for  recognition  of  a  union  on  the  part  of  the  em¬ 
ployes.  He  will  not  grant  one  when  the  workers  of  several 
employing  companies  apply  for  one,  and  when  these  companies 
will  not  agree  upon  a  joint  representative;  and  in  cases  where 
two  unions  may  be  organized  and  struggling  for  supremacy,  if 
one  of  these  organizations  objects  to  such  procedure. 

The  conciliatory  spirit  and  flexible  manner  in  which  the  act 
has  been  administered  has  probably  been  responsible  for  the  de¬ 
lays  of  which  organized  labor  complains.  The  official  reports 
of  the  Canadian  Department  of  Labor  indicates  that  at  times 
long  periods  have  elapsed  between  the  application  for  boards, 
their  constitution  and  the  rendering  of  their  reports. 

Ninety  per  cent  of  the  boards  established  have  been  applied 
for  by  employes,  whose  custom  is  to  recommend,  usually,  their 
representative  in  the  application.  Under  the  law,  five  days  are 
given  to  the  employers  for  the  nomination  of  their  representa¬ 
tive.  Five  additional  days  are  allowed  the  two  members  so  ap¬ 
pointed  to  select  a  chairman.  The  board  should  be  completely 
established  within  fifteen  days  after  receipt  of  application.  The 
minister  of  labor  has  discretionary  power  to  extend  the  length 
of  these  periods  and  generally  does  so. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


^73 


Thus  of  the  161  boards  that  have  been  constituted  in  the 
last  nine  years,  only  sixty  were  established  within  the  fifteen 
days.  It  took  between  sixteen  and  thirty-one  days  for  sixty- 
six  and  between  thirty-one  and  forty-six  days  for  twenty-one 
boards  to  be  constituted.  For  six  boards,  between  forty-six 
and  sixty-one  days  and  for  eight  boards,  more  than  sixty-one 
days  elapsed. 

The  workers  think  their  cause  suffers  also  from  long  periods 
elapsing  between  the  application  for  boards  and  the  filing  of 
their  reports.  For  only  twelve,  or  about  8  per  cent  of  the  dis¬ 
putes,  was  this  period  less  than  thirty-one  days;  for  forty  it 
was  thirty-one  to  forty-six  days ;  for  thirty-six,  between  forty- 
six  and  sixty-one  days ;  for  eighteen,  between  sixty-one  and 
seventy-six  days.  For  an  additional  twenty-two,  between 
seventy-six  and  ninety-one  days;  and  for  thirty,  or  about  19 
per  cent  of  the  cases,  more  than  ninety-one  days,  or  three 
months,  were  consumed  between  the  application  for  a  board  and 
the  rendering  of  the  final  report.  For  three  cases  this  infor¬ 
mation  is  not  available. 

In  reply  to  the  complaints  of  organized  labor  with  reference 
to  these  delays,  officials  of  the  Department  of  Labour  main¬ 
tain  that,  considering  the  vast  distances  over  which  they  have 
to  operate,  the  boards  are  appointed  quite  promptly.  If  delays 
do  occur,  they  are  in  accordance  with  the  conciliatory  spirit 
in  which  the  act  is  administered. 

Files  in  the  department  show  that  employers  very  fre¬ 
quently  delay  the  procedure  by  asking  for  extensions  of  time. 
“But  we  don’t  want  to  ride  rough-shod  over  a  company,”  ex¬ 
plained  a  prominent  official  of  the  department.  “If  they  say  that 
they  will  not  appoint  a  representative,  we  tell  them  they  must 
do  so,  and  we  try  to  reason  with  them  that  they  should  comply 
with  the  law.  If  they  ask  for  an  extension  of  time,  we  grant  it 
to  them  and  try  to  hurry  the  proceedings  on  as  fast  as  pos¬ 
sible.” 

How  far  these  delays  constitute  a  real  grievance  should  be 
indicated  to  some  extent  by  the  character  of  the  reports,  when 
they  are  finally  rendered.  They  should  also  show  whether,  as 
many  trade  union  officials  contend,  it  is  difficult  for  labor  to 
secure  a  favorable  report  because  of  the  bias  of  the  chairman, 
who,  according  to  them,  is  chosen  almost  always  by  the  minister 
of  labor. 


274 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


For  the  nine-year  period  ending  March  31,  1916,  there  were 
altogether  f6i  fully  established  boards  which  conducted  hear¬ 
ings.1  In  ninety-two  of  these  disputes,  or  over  one-half,  the 
reports  were  unanimous.  In  only  thirty-five  cases  did  the  em¬ 
ployes’  representative  dissent  from  the  majority  report,  and  in 
twenty,  the  employers’  representative  dissented.  In  three  cases 
both  dissented  from  certain  features  of  the  reports,  and  in  the 
remaining  eleven  either  no  decision  was  rendered  or  the  nature 
of  the  report  is  not  clearly  indicated. 

This  record  seems  to  show  that  the  unions  need  to  revise 
their  claim  that  it  has  been  difficult  for  them  to  secure  favor¬ 
able  decisions. 

In  only  twenty  cases  did  strikes  occur  or  continue  after  the 
dispute  had  come  within  the  scope  of  the  act.  In  some  in¬ 
stances,  moreover,  a  basis  of  collective  bargaining  has  been  es¬ 
tablished  between  employers  and  their  men,  leading  to  the  sign¬ 
ing  of  long-term  agreements. 

Nor  is  it  correct  to  say  that  the  representatives  of  em¬ 
ployers  and  employes  usually  fail  to  agree  on  the  third  person 
to  be  nominated  as  chairman,  thus  leaving  the  choice  to  the 
minister  of  labor.  In  nearly  one-half,  or  seventy-five,  of  the 
161  boards  which  were  fully  established,  the  appointment  was 
made  on  the  recommendations  of  the  two  other  members  of  the 
board.  Although  the  proportion  of  failures  to  agree  on  the 
nomination  of  chairmen  seems  large,  the  facts  do  not  seem  to 
bear  out  the  contention  that  the  administration  of  the  act  has 
injured  organized  labor  in  Canada  to  any  great  extent. 

So  far,  however,  we  have  been  considering  the  success  of  the 
act  on  the  sole  basis  of  those  disputes  which  have  been  referred 
to  it.  It  is  here  that  the  greatest  danger  of  error  lies.  Most 
comments  in  this  country  on  the  operation  of  the  act  are  based 
on  the  reports  of  the  register  of  the  boards.  But  these  docu¬ 
ments  contain  an  account  mainly  of  those  disputes  which  have 
been  referred  for  adjustment  under  the  act;  they  do  not  give 
the  complete  facts  about  the  frequency  and  the  importance  of 
all  the  strikes  which  have  occurred  in  those  industries  com¬ 
ing  within  its  scope.  For  this  information  we  must  go  to  the 
special  report  on  strikes  and  lockouts  (covering  the  years  1901- 

1  The  total  number  of  application  for  boards  has  been  iqi.  In  twenty- 
two  cases  no  boards  were  established;  in  eight  they  were  partially  estab¬ 
lished. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


*7  5 


12)  and  the  subsequent  annual  reports  issued  by  the  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Labour. 

This  department  was  established  in  1900  and  has  kept  a  rec¬ 
ord  of  industrial  disputes  which  have  occurred  from  January 
1,  1901,  to  March  22,  1916.  Because  of  war  conditions  there 
have  been  few  strikes  in  Canada  in  the  last  two  years  (ie.,  to 
March  31,  1916)  and  none  of  them  has  been  serious.  The 
disputes  act  became  a  law  on  March  22,  1907,  and  it  will,  there¬ 
fore,  be  possible  to  compare  the  importance  of  strikes  in  fairly 
equal  periods  before  and  after  its  operation. 

One  difficulty  must  necessarily  be  encountered  in  using  the 
comparative  figures  of  the  period  before  and  after  the  act  was 
passed  as  a  measure  of  its  success.  It  is  all  but  impossible  to 
say  whether  there  would  have  been  more  or  fewer  strikes  in  the 
last  nine  years  on  public  utilities  were  the  act  not  in  existence. 
Would  those  trade  unions  which  have  applied  for  boards  have 
declared  strikes  more  frequently,  or  would  the  usual  methods 
of  collective  bargaining  have  averted  the  occurrence  of  indus¬ 
trial  disputes?  Or  might  not  more  strikes  have  been  called  by 
these  organizations  if  the  act  did  not  provide  a  simple  ma¬ 
chinery  for  the  adjustment  of  difficulties?  These  questions 
must  be  borne  in  mind  in  judging  the  degree  to  which  this  law 
has  helped  to  establish  industrial  peace  in  Canada. 

The  particular  problem  for  which  the  act  was  devised  was 
industrial  unrest  in  coal  mines.  In  1906  a  prolonged  strike 
occurred  in  the  western  coal  fields  threatening  a  fuel  famine 
just  when  the  usually  severe  winter  was  approaching.  In  the 
province  of  Saskatchewan  the  coal  supply  had  been  almost  ex¬ 
hausted  and  the  settlers  scattered  in  the  small  towns  and  large 
prairies  were  facing  the  danger  of  freezing  to  death.  The  local 
authorities  could  do  nothing  to  end  the  dispute  and  finally  ap¬ 
pealed  for  federal  intervention.  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King,  then 
deputy-minister  of  labor,  was  sent  by  the  government  and  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  bringing  about  a  settlement.  So  much  was  he  im¬ 
pressed  with  the  suffering  that  a  prolonged  strike  in  this  region 
might  cause  that  he  recommended  the  enactment  of  a  law  by 
means  of  which  “all  questions  in  dispute  might  be  referred  to  a 
board  empowered  to  conduct  an  investigation  under  oath,  with 
the  additional  feature,  perhaps,  that  such  reference  should  not 
be  optional,  but  obligatory,  and  pending  the  investigation  and 


2/6 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


until  the  board  has  issued  its  finding  the  parties  be  restrained, 
on  pain  of  penalty,  from  declaring  a  lockout  or  strike." 


Working  Days  Lost  in  Mining  Through  Strikes 

No.  in  thousands  Per  cent,  of  days 

of  days  lost  in  all  industries 


1901  56  9 

1902  10  8 

1903  .  440  36 

1904  .  10  4 

1905  .  “4  53 

1906  188  52 

1907  .  203  33 

1908  16  2 

1909  711  82 

1910  .  377  53 

1911  I»593  79 

1912  89  8 

1913  .  703  55 

1914  169  39 

1915  .  17  16 


Persons  Employed  in  Mining 

Per  cent,  of  persons 
No.  in  thousands  in  all  industries 


1901  . .  37  2.  r 

1911  .  64  2.4 


The  act  was  thus  devised  with  particular  reference  to  strikes 
in  coal  mines.  A  very  important  test  of  its  efficacy  is,  there¬ 
fore,  its  success  in  diminishing  the  social  cost  of  industrial  dis¬ 
turbances  in  this  industry. 

The  period  during  which  the  act  has  been  in  operation  has 
been  practically  simultaneous  with  the  one  in  which  the  United 
Mine  Workers  have  attempted  to  extend  their  organization  in 
the  important  coal  fields  of  Canada.  These  coal  areas  are  the 
Crowsnest  Pass  region,  which  embraces  the  southwestern  por¬ 
tion  of  Alberta  and  the  eastern  portion  of  British  Columbia; 
Vancouver  Island,  on  the  extreme  western  end  of  British  Co¬ 
lumbia;  and  Nova  Scotia,  the  extreme  eastern  portion  of  the 
dominion.  From  the  point  of  view  of  production  the  eastern 
and  western  coal  fields  are  almost  of  equal  importance,  but 
from  the  point  of  view  of  consumption  a  strike  in  the  western 
coal  fields  causes  much  greater  suffering  than  does  one  in  Nova 
Scotia.  The  winters  are  much  colder  and  the  per  capita  con¬ 
sumption  of  coal  higher  in  the  western  provinces.  The  trans¬ 
continental  railroads  are  largely  dependent  on  these  western 
mines  for  their  fuel;  without  them,  it  would  be  almost  im- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


277 


possible  to  move  the  large  wheat  crops,  the  chief  asset  of 
the  dominion. 


Serious  Strikes  in  the  West 

It  is  in  this  western  district,  the  Crowsnest  Pass  region,  that 
the  most  serious  coal  strikes  have  taken  place,  both  before  and 
aft^r  the  act  was  passed.  The  United  Mine  Workers  of  Amer¬ 
ica'  entered  Canada  in  1902  and  began  organizing  the  miners 
in  this  region.  In  19136  the  first  strike,  under  their  auspices, 
the  one  which  resulted  in  the  passage  of  the  disputes  act,  was 
called. 

The  agreement  which  brought  this  strike  to  an  end  expired 
on  April  1,  1907.  On  April  9,  these  western  miners  applied 
for  a  board,  and  on  April  16,  while  it  was  being  constituted, 
they  struck,  this  being  the  first  violation  to  be  charged  against 
them.  The  board  could  do  very  little,  but  the  deputy  minister 
was  again  instrumental  in  bringing  about  a  settlement.  An  im¬ 
portant  coal-mining  strike  also  occurred  in  Nova  Scotia — not 
under  the  auspices,  however,  of  the  United  Mine  Workers — 
over  rates  of  pay.  The  total  time  losses  for  strikes  in  coal 
mines  for  the  year,  the  first  after  the  act  was  passed,  amounted 
to  188,360  days,  or  30.3  per  cent  of  the  total  days  lost  in  all 
strikes  in  Canada  for  the  year.2 

An  agreement  was  signed  in  the  Crowsnest  Pass  region  for 
two  years,  but  when  it  expired  in  March,  1909,  a  strike  was 
again  called  “over  the  renewal  of  the  working  agreement  in 
which  were  involved  certain  fine  points  of  recognition  rela¬ 
ting  to  collection  of  union  dues” — the  check-off,  in  other  words. 
Here  the  use  of  the  act  was  not  invoked  until  the  strike  had 
been  on  more  than  a  month,  and  for  the  second  time  the  miners 
violated  the  act.  Neither  party  accepted  the  report  of  the  board, 
but  after  being  out  on  strike  for  three  months,  the  men  re¬ 
turned  to  work  and  an  agreement  extending  to  March  31,  1911, 
was  signed. 

In  this  same  year,  1909,  the  United  Mine  Workers  entered 
into  a  struggle  to  gain  recognition  in  Nova  Scotia.  In  this 
province  there  had  been  for  a  long  time  a  local  organization 

2  It  is  the  number  of  men  involved  and  the  time  wasted  that  makes  a 
strike  costly.  The  Canadian  Department  of  Labour  has  reached  a  com¬ 
posite  and  most  satisfactory  measurement  by  multiplying  the  number  of 
days  in  which  the  particular  industry  was  idle  by  the  number  of  men  on 
strike  and  has  thus  worked  out  what  might  be.  called  “men-days”  or,  as 
they  are  termed  in  the  Canadian  reports,  “working  days”  lost. 


278 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


of  miners  known  as  the  Provincial  Workmen’s  Association, 
and  it  appears  that  the  strike  resulted  in  a  fight  for  supremacy 
between  the  two  unions,  with  the  operators  favoring  the  local 
rather  than  the  international  organization. 

The  strike  was  centered  in  three  places,  Glace  Bay,  Spring- 
hill  and  Inverness.  In  the  first  two  places  the  men  applied 
for  boards  before  they  ceased  working,  but  in  Inverness  the 
act  was  completely  ignored.  In  the  latter  place  the  strike  lasted 
for  some  months,  at  Glace  Bay  from.  July,  1909,  to  April  1910, 
and  at  Springhill  from  August,  1909,  to  May,  1911,  a  period 
of  almost  two  years.  In  all  three  of  these  places  riots  occurred 
and  “troops  were  stationed  for  a  considerable  time  at  each 
point.”  The  United  Mine  Workers  were  defeated  in  this  fight 
for  recognition,  but  these  serious  strikes  conducted  by  them 
were  mainly  responsible  in  1909  for  over  four-fifths,  and  in 
1910  for  over  one-half,  of  the  total  time  losses  of  each  year. 

On  March  31,  1911,  the  agreement  signed  in  1909  between 
the  United  Mine  Workers  and  the  operators  of  the  Crowsnest 
Pass  region  expired,  and  7,000  miners  went  out  on  strike  again 
without  applying  for  a  board  until  the  strike  had  been  on  for 
some  time.  “The  crucial  point,  as  in  1909,  was  the  ‘check¬ 
off.’  ”  This  strike,  together  with  the  one  that  was  prolonged 
from  1909  in  Springhill,  N.  S.,  and  a  few  minor  ones,  made  the 
total  time  losses  in  ion  for  strikes  in  coal  mines  1,592,800 
working  days,  or  78.9  per  cent  of  all  the  working  days  lost  in 
ail  strikes  occurring  during  the  year. 

On  September  16,  1912,  the  disputes  act  was  completely 
ignored  and  a  struggle  began  between  the  United  Mine  Work¬ 
ers  and  the  mine  operators  of  Vancouver  Island.  The  chief 
demand  was  “recognition.”  This  strike  was  not  called  off  until 
August  19,  1914,  nearly  two  years  later.  As  in  Nova  Scotia, 

the  United  Mine  Workers  appear  to  have  been  defeated,  but 

mainly  because  of  this  strike  half  a  million  working  days  were 
lost  in  1913,  or  45.7  per  cent  of  all  the  working  days  lost  in  all 
of  the  strikes  occurring  during  the  year. 

Thus  the  act  does  not  seem  to  have  an  effective  hold  on  the 
coal-mining  industry  of  Canada.  During  1916  some  half- 
dozen  strikes  occurred  in  mines  distributed  practically  over  all 
of  the  coal  fields  of  Canada.  In  only  one  case  was  the  dispute 

referred  to  a  board  for  adjustment.  In  the  Crowsnest  Pass 

region,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  agreement  signed  between 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


2/9 


the  miners  and  operators  did  not  expire  until  March  I,  1917, 
they  struck  twice  last  year,  in  complete  defiance  of  the  act, 
for  a  “war  bonus”  because  of  the  abnormal  rise  in  the  cost  of 
living. 

In  all  for  the  six-year  period  before  the  act  was  passed 
thirty-eight  strikes  are  recorded  in  coal  mines,  involving  an 
average  loss  per  year  of  121,331  days  or  264  per  cent  of  all  the 
working  days  lost  in  all  strikes.  In  the  nine-year  period  sub¬ 
sequent  to  the  passing  of  the  act,  coal  miners  struck  thirty- 
seven  times  involving  an  average  loss  per  year  of  419-223  days, 
or  46.9  per  cent  of  all  the  working  days  lost  in  all  strikes.  Thus, 
in  the  latter  period,  in  spite  of  the  act,  the  average  loss  per 
year  of  working  days  in  coal-mining  strikes  is  about  three  and 
one-half  times  as  great  as  before  the  law  was  passed,  and  the 
proportion  of  that  total  to  all  working  days  lost  in  all  strikes 
almost  doubled. 

The  Act  a  Failure  in  Coal-Mining 

If  we  consider  only  the  coal-mining  industry,  the  conditions 
of  which  gave  rise  to  the  act,  it  has  clearly  failed  to  accom¬ 
plish  its  purpose  of  averting  strikes. 

What  proportion,  it  will  be  asked  in  criticism,  do  the  miners 
constitute  of  the  workers  of  Canada?  If  it  is  large,  it  should 
not  be  surprising  that  the  mining  industry  is  responsible  for 
about  one-half  of  the  social  cost  of  strikes.  Unfortunately,  the 
Canadian  census  does  not  give  us  this  proportion  each  year.  But 
it  does  give  it  for  the  years  1901  and  1911,  and  the  facts  show 
very  clearly  how  serious  the  problem  of  industrial  unrest  has 
been  in  the  coal  mines  of  Canada.  In  1901,  2.1  per  cent  and  in 
1911,  24  per  cent  of  the  total  gainfully  occupied  population  were 
engaged  in  mining  (both  coal  and  metal).  In  other  words, 
while  the  miners  have  constituted  only  about  one-fiftieth  to 
one-fortieth  of  the  gainfully  occupied  population,  and  while  this 
proportion  has  been  nearly  constant,  they  have  been  responsible 
for  more  than  one-four  of  the  working  days  lost  in  industrial 
disputes  during  the  period  1901  to  1907,  and  for  nearly  one- 
half  of  the  working  days  lost  during  the  period  1907  to  1916. 

The  facts  show  that  there  have  been  strikes,  and  that  there 
have  been  serious  strikes  in  the  coal  industry  in  the  period 
during  which  the  act  has  been  in  operation.  Although  the  act 
was  intended  primarily  to  prevent  strikes  in  coal  mines,  it  ap¬ 
pears  that  it  has  failed  to  remove  this  sore  spot  from  the  in- 


28o 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


dustrial  organism  of  Canada.  But  before  reaching  a  definite 
conclusion  on  the  basis  of  these  facts,  the  difficulty  of  meas¬ 
uring  the  results  of  such  a  piece  of  legislation  should  be  borne 
in  mind.  Might  there  not  have  been  more  strikes  and  more 
serious  ones  but  for  the  act?  As  a  partial  answer  there  is  the 
fact  that  Nova  Scotia,  where  as  much  coal  is  mined  as  in  the 
western  coal  area,  has  been  comparatively  free  from  serious 
strikes  with  the  exception  of  the  period  during  which  the 
United  Mine  Workers  were  active  in  that  province.  It  should 
also  be  recalled  that  this  union  conducted  an  extensive  cam¬ 
paign  of  organization  in  Canada  during  the  years  1903  to  1914. 
There  is  the  additional  fact  that  the  Provincial  Workmen’s 
Association,  which  has  about  5,000  miners  in  its  membership, 
has  observed  the  law  and  has  worked  under  agreements,  adopted 
as  a  result  of  the  sitting  of  boards,  in  disputes  between  them 
and  the  coal  operators.  There  is,  however,  also  the  fact  that 
this  organization  always  discouraged  strikes  even  before  the  act 
was  passed,  and  for  this  reason  many  of  its  members  left  it  in 
1909  to  join  the  ranks  of  the  United  Mine  Workers. 

Railroads  and  Other  Public  Utilities 

In  Canada,  as  in  this  country,  there  have  been  few  serious 
strikes  on  railroads.  Only  one  may  be  charged  to  the  railroad 
brotherhoods  during  the  last  sixteen  years,  and  that  was  called 
in  1910,  three  years  after  the  act  was  passed,  when  the  trainmen 
and  conductors  on  the  Grand  Truck  rejected  the  majority  re¬ 
port  signed  by  their  own  representative.  The  railroad  teleg¬ 
raphers  have  not  struck  once  during  this  period,  and  the  main- 
tenance-of-way  employes  conducted  one  serious  strike  in  1901, 
six  years  before  the  statute  was  passed. 

So  unimportant  has  been  the  problem  of  railway  disputes  in 
Canada  that,  when  the  first  draft  of  the  act  was  introduced  in 
Parliament,  it  did  not  include  the  railroads  within  its  scope. 
Since  the  passage  of  the  act,  it  is  true  that  there  have  been 
seventy-five  applications  for  boards  in  railway  disputes,  and  in 
only  six  of  these  cases  have  strikes  occurred.  The  question 
naturally  arises,  would  the  brotherhoods  have  called  strikes 
more  frequently  had  not  boards  helped  to  adjust  the  difficulties 
ensuing  between  them  and  their  employers?  This  is  not  an 
easy  question  to  answer,  and  yet  it  is  fundamental.  It  is  true 
also  that  the  applicants  must  make  a  statement,  when  asking 
for  a  board,  that  if  the  dispute  is  not  referred  to  a  board  or  ad- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


281 

justed  by  it,  a  strike  or  lockout  will,  to  the  best  of  their  knowl¬ 
edge,  take  place.  Does  this  mean  that  sixty-nine  railway  strikes 
have  been  averted? 

It  is  conceivable,  in  the  first  place,  that  employers  reluctant 
to  grant  the  demands  of  their  men  would  refer  them  to  the  act, 
without  going  through  the  complete  process  of  collective  bar¬ 
gaining  with  them.  In  fact  this  is,  as  we  have  seen,  one  of  the 
chief  complaints  of  the  strong  unions.  In  the  second  place,  few 
strikes  occurred  in  the  railroads  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the 
law.  Finally,  there  is  the  fact  that  freight  handlers  and  other 
unskilled  and  more  or  less  unorganized  workers  employed  by 
the  Canadian  railways  have  struck  in  violation  of  the  act.  Thus 
we  find  that  during  the  last  nine  years  [i.e.,  1907-1916]  freight 
handlers  have  called  sixteen  strikes.  In  only  three  instances  did 
they  apply  for  boards,  and  that  was  after  they  had  struck. 

Most  of  the  representatives  of  the  railroad  employes  inter¬ 
viewed  thought  that  it  was  not  the  act  which  was  responsible 
for  the  maintenance  of  industrial  peace  on  the  railroads  of 
Canada,  but  rather  the  reluctance  of  the  brotherhoods  to  strike. 

“I  know  that  in  the  annual  reports,”  remarked  a  representative  of 
the  locomotive  engineers,  ‘‘the  Department  of  Labour  says  that  so  many 
disputes  and  that  so  many  strikes  have  been  referred  to  boards  and 
averted,  but  that  isn’t  so.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  as  far  as  I  can  remem¬ 
ber,  since  I  have  been  in  our  organization,  it  never  had  a  strike,  even 
before  the  act  was  passed.  It  can’t  be  said  that  there  would  be  strikes 
if  the  statute  did  not  exist.  The  railroad  brotherhoods  will  go  to  any 
limits  before  calling  a  strike.  We  are  constantly  securing  new  agree¬ 
ments  without  applying  for  boards.” 

Similarly  most  of  them  contended  that  negotiations  between 
them  and  the  railroad  companies  would  result  in  the  securing 
of  agreements  did  no  legislation  exist.  The  act  for  them  has 
merely  offered  the  machinery  of  collective  bargaining  different 
in  form,  but  similar  in  spirit,  to  their  usual  practice  before  it 
was  passed. 

Street-car  strikes  show  a  decrease  from  ten  for  the  period 
1901  to  1907  to  four  for  the  period  1907  to  1916.  As  there  have 
been  twenty-one  disputes  referred  to  boards  from  this  industry, 
and  in  only  two  instances  did  strikes  follow,  it  does  seem  that 
the  act  has  been  successful  in  averting  this  serious  and  disas¬ 
trous  type  of  dispute.  Longshoremen  called  twelve  strikes  dur¬ 
ing  the  first  period  and  fourteen  during  the  second. 

The  reports  of  the  Department  of  Labour  show  for  the  first 
period — that  is,  before  the  act  was  passed — that  60,  or  8.4  per 
cent  of  all  disputes  in  all  industries  during  that  time  occurred 


282 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


in  the  industries  grouped  under  the  heading  “general  transport” 
(including  railway  employes,  freight  handlers,  longshoremen, 
coal  handlers,  teamsters  and  others  commonly  employed  in 
transportation).  These  involved  an  average  loss  of  68,684 
working  days  per  year,  or  15  per  cent  of  all  the  working  days 
lost  in  all  strikes.  For  the  period  after  the  act  was  passed, 
these  reports  give  for  the  same  industries  74  disputes,  or  9.6 
per  cent  of  all  occurring  during  the  last  nine  years,  involving 
an  average  loss  of  87,776  working  days,  or  9.8  per  cent  of 
all  working  days  lost  in  all  disputes.  If  we  should  include 
strikes  in  railway  construction  work  (a  class  of  work  to  which 
the  act  has  not  yet  been  applied  but  which  is  nevertheless  a 
public  utility)  the  proportion  of  working  days  lost,  while  re¬ 
maining  the  same  for  the  first  period,  rises  in  the  second  to  15.7 
per  cent  of  the  total  time  losses  in  all  strikes.  Considering 
the  fact  that  the  proportion  of  Canadian  workers  engaged  in 
transportation  increased  from  4.8  to  9  per  cent  between  1901 
and  1911,  we  find  that  the  proportion  of  days  lost  from  strikes, 
after  the  act  was  passed,  actually  decreased. 

Results  Among  Public  Utilities 

To  summarize  for  all  public  utilities,  108,  or  15.1  per  cent, 
of  the  716  disputes  recorded  between  January  1,  1901,  and 
March  22,  1907,  the  period  before  the  act  was  passed,  occurred 
in  those  industries  coming  within  its  definition.  Between  March 
22,  1907,  and  March  22,  1916,  the  period  during  which  the 
statute  has  been  in  operation,  127,  or  16.5  per  cent  of  the  total 
of  768  disputes  occurred  in  these  industries.  Not  only  was  there 
a  slight  increase  in  the  proportionate  number  of  disputes,  but 
working  days  lost,  the  best  measurement  of  the  price  the  public 
pays  for  strikes,  show  a  much  greater  increase.  For  the  first 
period  the  average  loss  of  working  days  per  year  due  to  strikes 
on  public  utilities  was  201,502,  or  43.9  per  cent  of  the  total  time 
losses  in  all  industrial  disputes.  For  the  second  period  the  aver¬ 
age  loss  of  working  days  per  year  was  581,936  (including  rail¬ 
way  construction),  or  65.1  per  cent  of  the  total  time  losses  in 
all  disputes. 

Thus  even  when  allowance  is  made  for  an  increase  in  the 
proportion  of  workers  employed,  the  social  cost  of  strikes  on 
public  utilities  has  not  been  materially  reduced.  The  analysis 
of  these  figures  shows  that  there  has  been  a  marked  increase  in 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


283 


loss  of  time  through  strikes  on  coal  mines.  Transportation  be¬ 
fore  1907  and  since  that  time  has  been  comparatively  free  from 
industrial  disturbances. 

Violations  of  the  Act 

As  a  voluntary  conciliation  measure,  the  act  has  been  very 
successful,  but  the  most  serious  indictment  against  it  as  a  “com¬ 
pulsory  investigation”  act  has  been  the  failure  to  impose  penal¬ 
ties  for  violations.  As  we  have  already  seen,  strikes  were  not 
averted  or  ended  in  twenty  or  about  one-tenth  of  the  total  191 
applications  made  for  boards,  but  the  most  serious  and  impor¬ 
tant  strikes  occurring  in  the  coal  industry  have  been  illegal ; 
that  is,  cessation  of  work  took  place  either  before  applying  for 
boards  or  during  proceedings  or  without  invoking  the  act. 

The  Canadian  act  is  a  compulsory  one  mainly  because  pen¬ 
alties  are  provided  for  the  calling  of  such  illegal  strikes,  and 
the  essential  test  of  any  compulsory  law  is  the  extent  to  which 
it  is  enforced.  Yet  it  is  in  this  very  important  aspect  that  the 
act  has  failed  as  a  compulsory  measure.  The  railway  labor  or¬ 
ganizations  are  the  only  ones  who  have  strictly  observed  the 
law.  In  their  efforts  to  organize  the  coal  miners  of  Canada,  the 
United  Mine  Workers  have  conducted  their  most  serious  and 
costly  strikes  in  violation  of  it.  Freight  handlers  and  other  un¬ 
skilled  workers  have  frequently  ignored  it.  Altogether,  approx¬ 
imately  eighty-four  strikes  on  public  utilities  may  be  charged  up 
as  illegal,  distributed  approximately  as  follows :  coal  mines 
thirty-four ;  metal  mines  fourteen ;  railroads  four ;  freight  hand¬ 
lers  sixteen ;  street  cars  two ;  longshoremen  fourteen.  This 
may  not  be  an  accurate  estimate,  since  the  reports  do  not  list 
strikes  as  illegal  and  the  facts  can  only  be  inferred  from  the 
data  in  two  separate  documents.  That  the  violations  of  the  law 
have  not  been  unimportant  can  best  be  seen  by  the  fact  that  the 
legal  disputes  in  coal  mines — the  industry  for  which  the  act  was 
primarily  intended — involved,  on  the  average,  about  866  em¬ 
ployes,  while  the  illegal  strikes  involved,  on  the  average,  about 
890  miners. 

“If  either  an  employee  or  an  employer  violates  the  law  by  causing 
a  strike  or  lockout  before  an  investigation  has  been  held,”  commented 
Victor  S.  Clark  in  1910,  after  having  made  a  personal  inquiry  into  the 
operation  of  the  act,  “he  is  practically  immune  from  prosecution  unless 
the  other  party  to  the  dispute  brings  action  in  the  court  to  punish  him. 
In  the  districts  where  the  law  has  been  violated  or  evaded  in  these 
respects,  there  is  a  demand  by  the  party  that  has  suffered  .  .  .  that 
the  government  assume  their  prosecution.  .  .  .  “This  situation  .  .  .  raises 


284 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


an  important  question.  If  the  men  can  strike  with  impunity  in  disregard 
of  the  law,  what  is  the  value  of  the  latter  in  preventing  or  postponing 
strikes?  Will  the  act  not  fall  in  abeyance  except  in  those  minor  and 
less  acute  disputes  where  there  is  least  call  for  .  .  .  intervention?  Has 
a  law  any  force  at  all  that  operates  only  by  the  tolerance  of  law-breakers? 
It  should  be  recognized  that  expediency  must  constantly  be  consulted  in 
pediency  must  constantly  be  consulted  in  administering  such  an  act,  but 
administering  such  an  act,  but  it  must  constantly  be  consulted  in  admin¬ 
istering  such  an  act,  but  it  would  seem  that  the  latter,  though  it  may 
retain  some  residuary  value  as  providing  convenient  machinery  for  pub¬ 
lic  mediation  must  lose  its  distinctive  character  and  its  interest  as  ex¬ 
perimental  legislation  unless  some  way  is  discovered  to  secure  the  ob¬ 
servance  of  the  clauses  of  deferring  strikes  and  lockouts  until  an  in¬ 
vestigation  is  made.  Unless  these  clauses  are  enforced,  the  law  becomes 
an  ordinary'  concilation  act,,  burdened  by  the  discredit  of  its  unenforced 
provisions.” 

The  Department  of  Labour  has  taken  the  position  that  it  will 
not  prosecute  for  violation  of  the  law.  The  registrar  states  the 
official  position  of  the  government  in  the  Canadian  Law  Times 
for  March,  1916 : 

“There  has  been  also,  in  industries  coming  under  the  act,  a  consid¬ 
erable  number  of  strikes  in  disputes  which  have  not  gone  before  a  board 
for  investigation.  Work  ceased  in  these  cases  without  regard  to  the  act. 
Many  of  the  serious  coal-mining  strikes  in  western  Canada  during  recent 
years  have  occurred  in  this  way. 

“What,  it  may  be  asked,  becomes  of  the  penalties  prescribed  for  these 
apparent  infringements  of  the  statute?  The  reply  must  be  that  such 
cases  have  seldom  gone  to  the  courts.  It  has  not  been  the  policy  of  the 
successive  ministers  under  whose  authority  the  state  has  been  admin¬ 
istered  to  undertake  the  enforcement  of  these  provisions.  The  parties 
concerned,  or  the  local  authorities,  have  laid  information  occasionally, 
and  there  have  been  in  all  eight  or  ten  judicial  decisions.  The  mining 
industry  has  been  the  chief  delinquent  in  the  matter  of  infringements, 
and  there  have  been  occasional  derelictions  on  the  part  of  the  lower 
grades  of  transport  or  shipping  labour;  in  the  higher  grades  of  railway 
labour  the  act  has  ben  well  observed.” 

Several  prominent  Canadians  were  asked  why  the  United 
Mine  Workers,  who  have  been  responsible  for  the  most  serious 
violations  of  the  act,  have  not  been  prosecuted.  One  of  them, 
referring  to  the  situation  in  the  Crowsnest  Pass  region,  gave 
a  typical  reply. 

“In  a  case  of  this  kind,”  he  said,  “the  act  is  powerless;  what  can 
you  do?  Here  are  about  6,000  men,  most  of  them  foreigners.  They 
don’t  understand  the  act.  They  don’t  care  for  it.  What  are  you  going 
to  do?  Fine  them?  Well,  they  won’t  pay.  Put  them  in  jail — if  you 
could?  The  coal  won’t  be  mined.  As  far  as  I  can  see,  any  legislation 
in  the  world  wouldn’t  prevent  a  strike  from  occurring  under  these  cir¬ 
cumstances.” 

The  records  of  the  Department  of  Labour  show,  up  to  March 
12,  1915,  only  eight  prosecutions.  These  have  been  relatively 
unimportant  ones.  Three  were  against  employes  of  metal 
mines,  an  industry  in  which  a  strike,  under  ordinary  circum¬ 
stances,  does  not  cause  much  suffering.  Two  were  against  op¬ 
erators  of  small  coal  mines  for  illegally  declaring  a  lockout. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


285 


One  case,  in  which  three  coal  miners  were  charged  with  aiding 
in  calling  an  illegal  strike,  was  dismissed.  In  another,  at  In¬ 
verness,  N.  S.,  a  union  official  was  convicted  for  giving  strike 
benefits  to  the  men  who  had  ceased  working  without  applying 
for  a  board.  In  one  case,  four  miners  employed  by  a  small 
coal  company  were  each  fined  $40  and  costs  or  thirty  days  in 
j  ail. 


Penalties  Not  Enforced 

The  evidence  does  not  seem  to  show  that  an  extensive  at¬ 
tempt  has  been  made  to  force  those  responsible  for  the  calling 
of  the  important,  illegal  strikes  to  pay  the  penalties  provided  by 
the  act. 

“The  government  has  ne.ver  laid  particular  stress  upon  the  penalty 

end  of  it,”  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King,  the  author  of  the  law,  explained  in 
1914  to  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations,  “the  pen¬ 
alty  part  .  .  .  has  always  been  treated  in  much  the  same  light  as 
penalty  for  trespass.  If  the  party  affected  wishes  to  enter  an  action  to 
recover  damages  they  may  do  so.  .  .  .” 

.The  analogy  between  the  penalties  provided  in  this  statute 
and  those  placed  in  a  trespass  law  does  not  appear  to  be  sound. 
Trespass  law  is  framed  to  protect  the  individual  against  any 
infringements  that  may  be  made  on  his  property  rights.  The 
Disputes  act  was  intended  to  protect,  not  an  individual  party,  but 
the  public  against  the  suffering  caused  by  strikes  on  public  utili¬ 
ties.  A  violation  of  this  law  is  a  crime  against  the  public.  The 
person  guilty  of  such  a  violation  should  be  prosecuted  at  the 
instigation  of  the  public  authority  charged  with  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  the  act,  in  this  case,  the  Department  of  Labour. 

“In  speaking  of  the  Canadian  act  as  a  failure  as  a  ‘compulsory  in¬ 
vestigation’  act,”  a  former  Canadian  official  writes  on  this  aspect  of  its 
operation,  “the  alleged  failure  in  compulsion  is  put  down  to  the  non¬ 
enforcement  of  penalties,  whereas  it  was  with  a  view  to  compelling  in¬ 
vestigation  where  labor  wished  investigation  as  a  means  of  securing  a 
redress  of  wrong,  and  not  compelling  penalties,  that  the  act  was  framed. 
Let  me  explain  the  circumstances  that  led  to  the  enactment  of  the  com¬ 
pulsory  investigation  features  of  the  measure.  In  the  dispute  in  Alberta 
referred  to  in  the  article  [ i.e .,  the  one  leading  to  adoption  of  the  law], 
we  spent  nearly  a  week  trying  to  get  the  parties  together.  We  spent 
nearly  another  week  finding  out  from  each  what  they  were  prepared 
to  do.  Meanwhile,  settlers  and  others  were  freezing  in  their  homes. 
We  had  no  powers  other  than  that  of  a  voluntary  conciliator  to  fall 
back  upon.  Had  we  had  legislation  providing  powers  of  compulsory  in¬ 
vestigation,  we  could  have  effected  in  two  days  what  took  nearly  two 
weeks.  It  was  this  experience,  and  similar  experiences  in  other  strikes, 
which  made  us  seek  to  get  from  Parliament  powers  of  compulsory  in¬ 
vestigation,  which  meant  to  labor,  power  at  the  expense  of  the  state,  and 
with  the  machinery  of  the  state  back  of  it,  to  choose  its  own  investigator, 
to  summon  witnesses,  to  compel  the  production  of  documents,  to  take 
evidence  under  oath,  and  to  give  to  the  public  the  fullest  possible  kind 
of  a  view  of  the  case,  including  any  injustices  under  which  it  might  be 


286 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


suffering.  This  is  the  really  important  compulsory  investigation  feature 
of  the  act,  not  the  penalties  which  relate  to  strikes  and  lockouts.  Never 
from  the  time  the  act  was  passed  when  I  had  to  do  with  it  as  registrar 
or  as  minister  was  there  a  single  instance,  that  I  can  now  recall  in  which 
when  this  compulsory  investigation  feature  was  invoked  on  behalf  of 
labor,  that  it  was  not  enforceable  and  applied.  As  a  compulsory  investi¬ 
gation  act — that  is  to  say,  investigation  of  a  dispute  under  compulsion 
at  the  request  of  either  of  the  parties,  labor  or  capital — never  once  dur¬ 
ing  the  liberal  administration  did  its  provisions  in  this  particular  fail, 
and  where  investigation  took  place,  the  results  were  for  the  most  part  not 
only  beneficial  to  the  parties,  but  very  greatly  so  to  the  public  as  well. 
I  think  the  same  has  been  true  under  the  present  administration.” 


THE  CANADIAN  DISPUTES  ACT1 


For  several  years  a  number  of  well-meaning  persons  not 
members  of  labor  organizations,  have  been  advocating  the  pas¬ 
sage  of  legislation  looking  toward  compulsory  investigation  in 
labor  disputes,  particularly  when  applied  to  what  is  known  as 
public  utilities.  The  subject  has  been  brought  more  forcibly  to 
the  attention  of  the  public  mind  during  the  past  year  because 
of  the  controversy  between  the  four  railway  brotherhoods  and 
the  railway  companies.  The  advocates  of  compulsory  investiga¬ 
tion  point  out  the  wonderful  success  that  has  been  obtained  in 
Canada  through  the  Canadian  industrial  disputes  act,  which  law 
provides  that  no  strike  or  lockout  can  take  place  until  the  gov¬ 
ernment  has  had  opportunity  to  investigate.  Violators  of  the 
law  are  subject  to  fines  and  imprisonment. 

To  the  casual  reader  compulsory  investigation  before  a  strike 
or  lockout  can  take  place,  seems  like  a  fair  and  equitable  prop¬ 
osition  and  labor  seems  to  have  nothing  to  lose  but  much  to 
gain  under  such  a  law.  But  the  fact  is  that  there  is  no  equality 
of  opportunitj''  while  investigation  of  a  dispute  is  being  made. 

The  mere  statement  that  a  strike  or  lockout  can  not  occur 
pending  investigation  would  imply  that  the  responsibility  on 
both  sides  was  equal — such  is  not  the  case.  Labor  is  prevented 
from  striking  and  the  employer  is  supposedly  prevented  from 
locking  out  his  workmen,  but  the  employer  can  close  his  plant 
for  any  reason  sufficient  to  himself.  He  may  hold  that  his  op¬ 
erations  are  unprofitable.  He  may  hold  that  it  is  impossible  for 
him  to  secure  material.  He  may  hold  that  shipping  facilities  can 
not  be  secured.  He  may  hold  that  new  contracts  are  not  avail¬ 
able,  and  many  other  reasons  may  be  given  showing  the  neces- 

1  James  O’Connell,  Second  Vice-President  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  in  Survey.  37:756-7.  March  31,  1917. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


287 


sity  of  either  closing  his  plant  or  materially  reducing  his  force 
of  workmen,  thus  laying  off  the  leaders  and  active  men  whom 
he  thinks  are  responsible  for  the  agitation  to  improve  conditions 
of  employment. 

Again,  the  employer  enjoys  an  opportunity  under  com¬ 
pulsory  investigation  to  prepare  for  a  strike.  He  has  thirty 
days  or  longer  for  that  purpose,  while  the  workmen  can 
in  no  way  fortify  themselves,  their  position  being  practical¬ 
ly  the  same  at  the  end  of  an  investigation  as  at  the  be¬ 
ginning.  There  is,  therefore,  no  equality  of  opportunity. 

Organized  labor  in  the  United  States  has  declared  unalter¬ 
ably  against  compulsion  of  any  kind  in  labor  disputes.  We  hold 
that  labor  should  have  the  right  to  quit  the  employer  for  any 
reason  or  no  reason.  We  hold  that  this  view  is  in  conformity 
with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  which  prohibits  com¬ 
pulsory  servitude.  If  a  man  is  therefore  compelled  to  work  for 
any  period  of  time  against  his  will,  it  is  a  violation  of  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  He  could  no  more  be  punished 
for  the  violation  of  a  law  that  would  compel  him  to  work 
against  his  will  than  the  violators  of  the  Canadian  law  have 
been  punished.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  no  attempt  has  been 
made  to  punish  a  single  workman  in  Canada. 

Thousands  of  workmen  in  Canada  have  violated  the  Cana¬ 
dian  law,  have  gone  on  strike  without  notifying  the  government 
or  requesting  an  investigation  under  the  law.  Others  have 
struck  while  investigations  were  being  made,  and  still  others 
totally  disregarded  the  awards  and  quit  work.  Not  one  of  these 
workmen  was  fined  or  imprisoned.  If  all  who  violated  the 
Canadian  law  were  to  be  punished,  the  penal  institutions  of 
Canada  would  have  to  be  enlarged. 

To  compare  Canada  with  the  United  States  in  population  or 
in  the  number  of  its  industries  is  either  treating  the  matter  as 
a  joke  or  is  an  attempt  to  impose  upon  the  intelligence  of  our 
people.  What  might  work  fairly  well  in  Canada  with  its  popula¬ 
tion  of  approximately  seven  million,  all  of  one  nationality, 
would  not  work  in  the  United  States  with  its  one  hundred  mil¬ 
lion  population  made  up  of  all  nationalities. 

New  York  City  is  equal  in  population  to  the  entire  Dominion 
of  Canada.  More  workmen  are  involved  in  one  labor  dispute  in 
Greater  New  York  than  have  been  involved  in  all  disputes  and 
investigations  that  have  taken  place  during  the  entire  life  of  the 


288 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


Canadian  compulsory  investigation  law.  More  adjustments  have 
been  reached  in  disputes  between  the  employers  and  the  em¬ 
ployes  from  voluntary  mediation,  conciliation  and  arbitration  in 
Greater  New  York  in  one  year  than  has  been  accomplished  dur¬ 
ing  the  entire  period  the  Canadian  law  has  been  in  existence. 

Organized  labor  believes  in  voluntary  conciliation,  mediation 
and  arbitration.  If  the  employers  will  meet  their  workmen  in  a 
spirit  of  fairness,  concede  them  the  right  of  association  and 
representation,  then  strikes  will  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.  But 
the  employers  want  compulsory  investigation  only  because  it  de¬ 
lays  strikes,  thus  placing  themselves  in  a  position  to  fortify  and 
prepare  in  every  way  to  defeat  the  workmen  in  their  demands. 
If  this  were  not  so  why  do  they  not  meet  their  employes  before 
the  strikes  or  lockouts  take  place  without  having  a  law  to  com¬ 
pel  them  to  do  so?  We  decline  to  be  a  party  to  the  enactment 
of  any  law  that  will  for  one  moment  take  away  from  us  the 
right  to  quit  work  for  either  real  or  imaginary  causes. 

The  advocates  of  compulsory  investigation  say  “there  is  a 
third  party  interested  whose  rights  should  receive  consideration 
and  protection."  This  third  party  is  the  public.  If  the  public 
interested  itself  all  the  time,  whether  strikes  were  on  or  being 
threatened,  this  claim  might  hold  true.  The  fact  is,  however, 
the  public  as  a  rule  is  not  interested  in  the  conditions  under 
which  workmen  are  employed,  nor  does  it  give  much  thought, 
if  any,  whether  or  not  employers  deal  fairly  or  humanely  with 
their  workmen.  It  gives  little  thought  to  the  question  of  the 
hours  of  labor,  wages  paid  labor,  or  the  conditions  under  which 
labor  is  employed.  It  interests  itself  little,  if  at  all,  in  the  proper 
inspection  of  factories,  work  shops,  or  mines.  It  cares  little 
whether  or  not  employers  properly  protect  their  machinery  so 
that  life  and  limb  may  be  spared.  It  is  not  intensely  interested 
in  whether  or  not  children  are  employed  or  in  how  they  are  em¬ 
ployed.  It  makes  little  or  no  investigation  as  to  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  in  factories,  work  shops,  or  sweated  industries. 
Its  only  aim  is  to  see  the  trains  running  so  that  it  may  not  be 
inconvenienced  in  traveling  from  one  city  to  another.  It  sees 
only  the  smoke  coming  from  factories  but  never  looks  within. 
It  sees  only  products  coming  from  the  mill  but  never  stops  to 
think  how  these  products  are  produced.  It  sees  only  the  coal 
coming  from  the  mines  but  never  asks  the  conditions  under 
which  it  is  being  mined.  The  public  may  be  an  interested  party 
but  it  is  an  extremely  selfish  one. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


289 


Why  should  organized  labor  cheerfully  and  willingly  declare 
for  voluntary  servitude  if  it  has  practically  nothing  to  gain  and 
on  the  other  hand  much  to  lose?  Under  compulsory  investiga¬ 
tion  the  employer  has  all  the  advantage;  unlimited  time  to  pre¬ 
pare  for  the  strike ;  right  to  discharge  an  employe ;  right  of 
reducing  his  force,  thus  giving  him  an  unequal  advantage  over 
his  workmen.  At  best  compulsory  investigation  and  awards  are 
only  a  compromise.  This  much,  organized  labor  has  always 
been  able  to  secure.  The  public,  as  indicated  above,  is  interested 
only  in  peace  and  does  not  care  whether  labor  secures  just  treat¬ 
ment  or  not.  Its  slogan  is,  non-interruption  and  non-interfer¬ 
ence  with  business,  commerce,  finance  and  industry. 


THE  RIGHT  TO  STRIKE1 

The  President  desires  the  enactment  of  a  law,  not  for  the 
compulsory  investigation  of  strikes,  as  many  suppose,  but  for 
the  investigation  of  the  conditions  that  have  brought  the  pos¬ 
sibility  or  the  probability  of  a  strike,  before  it  can  take 
place.  He  desires  the  enactment  of  a  law  containing  pro¬ 
visions  similar  to  those  in  the  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes 
Act,  which  make  it  illegal  for  a  strike  or  lockout  to  be 
ordered  by  either  employee  or  employer  before  the  causes 
leading  to  it  have  been  investigated  by  the  government.  At 
its  last  annual  meeting  the  Canadian  Trade  and  Labor  Con¬ 
gress — the  A.  F.  of  L.  of  Canada — passed  a  resolution,  almost 
unanimously  condemning  it  for  the  reason  that  it  pinches 
only  one  foot,  binds  only  one  side  of  the  industrial  struggle. 

As  such  legislation  actually  works  out,  as  is  evidenced 
under  the  Canadian  act,  the  employer  invariably  utilizes  the 
period  of  delay  that  is  specified  for  investigation  to  make 
preparations  for  a  strike,  hiring  strike  breakers,  even  import¬ 
ing  them,  in  defiance  of  alien  laws,  so  that  when  the  period 
of  involuntary  service  required  under  the  act  has  elapsed  he 
is  in  position,  if  the  finding  of  the  tribunal  that  has  done  the 
investigating  upholds  the  contentions  of  the  men  to  any  de¬ 
gree,  to  repudiate  the  award,  and  to  replace  the  forces  of 
the  men.  In  other  words  the  act  wholly  and  absolutely  dis¬ 
poses  of  the  tactical  advantage  that  may  lie  with  the  em- 

1  Austin  B.  Garretson,  President  of  the  Order  of  Railway  Conductor*, 
Independent.  89:142-4.  January  22,  1917. 


290 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


ployee,  who  is,  of  course,  in  the  very  nature  of  a  strike,  the 
attacking  party.  Almost  any  strike  illustrates  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  psychological  moment  for  striking — one  that  is 
just  as  important  in  industrial  warfare  as  in  international 
warfare;  just  as  important  to  a  strike,  often,  as  Japan’s  attack 
upon  the  Russian  fleet  was  to  the  Russo-Japanese  war.  An  act 
of  this  kind  renders  valueless  the  greater  part  of  the 
weapons  of  the  laboring  man.  It  is  on  that  acount,  primarily, 
that  there  is  such  widespread  opposition  to  the  enactment  of 
laws  of  this  character.  In  a  word,  it  gives  the  employing 
side  a  great  advantage. 

Strategically,  this  advantage  works  to  the  good  of  the 
other  side  in  railroad  strikes  especially.  In  the  first  place 
this  is  true  because  the  railroads  are  adept  at  providing  on 
short  notice  a  mass  of  statistical  evidence  that  often  over¬ 
whelms  investigators  who  are  dealing  with  matters  as  com¬ 
plex  as  the  compensation  given  railroad  employees,  and  the 
conditions  under  which  they  serve.  This  evidence,  mo:e- 
over,  is  often  so  skillfully  presented  that  it  is  deceptive.  In 
the  second  place,  the  railroad  brotherhoods  have  always 
gone  forward  on  the  theory  and  practise  of  compromise.  In 
dealing  with  their  employers  they  have  been  content  with 
almost  any  appreciable  proportion  of  that  which  was  de¬ 
manded.  The  willingness  of  the  brotherhoods  to  compro¬ 
mise  in  this  manner  (growing  out  of  the  quasi-public  char¬ 
acter  of  the  service)  has  often  brought  upon  them  the  criti¬ 
cism  of  other  crafts,  some  of  whom  condemn  such  willing¬ 
ness  to  exert  every  means  toward  settlement  before  ap¬ 
pealing  to  the  strike.  This  situation  is  reflected  also  in  the 
fact  that  the  experience  of  the  railroad  brotherhoods  in 
strikes  is  very  limited.  The  two  great  strikes  in  America, 
in  1893  and  1877,  were  not  conducted  under  the  auspices  of 
the  brotherhoods.  There  has  been  nothing  aproaching  a 
general  tie-up  since. 

The  influence  of  every  combination  of  men  in  this  country 
who  are  employers  of  labor  and  of  men  who  are  in  the  con¬ 
duct  of  enterprises  commercial  in  their  character,  from  which 
profit  is  derived,  is  lent  to  the  enactment  of  a  measure  which 
will  permit  the  continuance  of  profits  without  actually  in¬ 
teresting  themselves  as  to  the  facts  of  whether  or  not  the 
welfare  of  the  worker  is  safeguarded  thereby.  -  To  such  men 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


291 


the  acme  of  success  is  the  continuance  of  profits  or  the  in¬ 
creasing  of  them.  And  as  what  may  be  described  as  “the 
master  class”  is  in  control  of  most  of  the  journals  through 
which  public  opinion  is  exprest  and  by  which  public  opinion 
is  formed,  it  becomes  readily  apparent  that  the  real  will, 
the  real  desire  and  the  real  purpose  of  the  great  majority  of 
the  citizens  of  the  republic  rarely  come  to  the  surface  at  all 
and  then  only  in  fragmentary  form.  When  industrial  strife 
creates  suffering  and  hardship,  complaints  as  to  these  hard¬ 
ships  seldom  originate  with  those  who  suffer  real  hardship, 
but  almost  wholly  from  those  who  suffer  nothing  but 
diminution  of  profit.  When  there  is  a  cessation  of  street  car 
service  in  a  great  city  the  demand  for  resumption  of  peace, 
regardless  of  the  terms  of  ‘settlement  upon  which  resump¬ 
tion  may  be  founded,  comes  not  from  the  working  people 
who  are  compelled  to  walk  or  avail  themselves  of  make¬ 
shift  transportation,  although  they  make  up  nine-tenths  of 
those  who  supply  the  revenue  of  the  street  car  companies, 
but  almost  wholly  from  those  whose  profit  suffers  by  the 
inability  of  the  purchasing  class  to  continue  to  contribute  to 
the  endless  chain  of  merchandizing  or  manufacturing.  It  is 
significant,  in  other  words,  that  in  these  cases  and  in  most 
other  cases  where  the  public  interest  is  at  stake  a  cry  is 
always  made  in  the  name  of  the  suffering  public,  when  in 
fact  the  actual  suffering  public  voices  no  protest  and  accepts 
the  hardship  as  part  of  the  heritage  of  men  who  labor. 

This  cry  on  behalf  of  the  suffering  public  has  been  raised 
by  the  employing  class  in  behalf  of  the  enactment  of  the 
President’s  proposed  bill. 

What  labor  men  resent  in  this  proposed  bill  is  the  utiliza¬ 
tion  of  forces  of  any  character  whatsoever  as  weapons  by  one 
side  or  the  other  in  a  strike  because  labor  has  learned  that 
the  interest  of  the  government  is  in  peace  and  in  profits.  The 
police  forces  and  the  military,  both  state  and  national,  in¬ 
stead  of  being  utilized  only  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  that 
each  of  the  combatants  in  industrial  strife  uses  only  legiti¬ 
mate  means,  are  almost  invariably  used  as  weapons  for  the 
purpose  of  furthering  the  interest  of  the  employing  class  at 
the  expense  of  the  employee.  Out  of  this  long  established 
practise  grows  the  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  laboring  man 
against  the  expansion  of  military  power  either  upon  the  part 


292 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


of  the  state  or  nation.  Experience  has  taught  the  laboring 
man  that  military  power  is  more  often  directed  against  him, 
to  break  down  his  resistance  to  oppressive  conditions  than 
against  any  outside  foe.  He  therefore  regards  any  legisla¬ 
tion  that  makes  possible  any  greater  measure  of  oppression 
as  directly  inequitable,  as,  in  fact,  the  worst  form  of  pre¬ 
paredness.  The  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  this  view  on 
the  part  of  labor  is  easily  tested  by  one  rule — by  an  examina¬ 
tion  of  the  arrests  and  convictions  made  in  strikes  foi  a 
class  of  offenses  that  if  no  strike  were  in  existence  would  not 
be  considered  as  offenses.  This  examination  will  show  you 
how  the  peace  power  of  state  and  city  are  pressed  into  in¬ 
dustrial  conflict  against  the  weaker  side.  The  same  use  of 
the  supposed  peace  power  is  indicated  by  the  existence  of  a 
large  number  of  agencies  which  veil  their  real  purpose  under 
the  name  of  detective  associations,  yet  draw  the  larger  part 
of  their  revenue  from  and  find  their  principal  field  of  acti\  itv 
in  the  furnishing  of  either  professional  strike  breakers  or 
armed  guards,  all  of  whom  usually  carry  arms  in  utter  de¬ 
fiance  of  the  statutes  of  the  various  states  in  which  their  ac¬ 
tivities  arc  exercised  and  against  whom  no  legal  action  is 
taken. 

Taking  these  facts  in  conjunction  with  those  previously 
referred  to,  one  need  not  seek  further  to  find  causes  for  the 
hostility  of  laboring  men  generally,  both  union  and  non¬ 
union,  to  the  enactment  of  further  legislation  formulated  for 
the  purpose,  as  they  believe,  of  further  limiting  the  abilities 
of  the  working  man  to  better  his  own  condition. 

The  greatest  difficulty  that  confronts  final  disposition  of 
the  strike  between  the  man  who  has  and  the  man  who  has 
not  lies  in  our  methods  in  dealing  with  it,  and  in  our  refusal  to 
look  issues  squarely  in  the  face.  Indisputable  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  that  fundamental  error  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  now,  at  a  period  of  unprecedented  prosperity  in  this 
very  metropolis,  one-twelfth  of  the  funerals  end  at  the 
potter’s  field.  That  almost  unbelievable  thing  is  fact. 

It  is  needless  to  go  further  than  this  grewsome  fact  to 
establish  the  reason  for  the  existence  in  the  minds  of  men 
from  the  paths  of  labor  as  to  the  inadequacy  of  the  present 
method  of  the  distribution  of  the  results  of  labor,  and  it  is 
not  difficult  to  understand  that  the  mass  of  men  who  realize 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


293 


that  they  have  not  received  what  they  believe  to  be  a  fair 
recognition  for  their  work  will  hold  that  democracy  as  ex¬ 
emplified  in  our  government  has  been  a  failure.  To  men 
seeing  things  from  this  point  of  view  it  is  inevitable  that  the 
theory  of  direct  action  would  have  great  appeal  in  the  face 
of  the  enactment  of  laws  such  as  the  president  recommends, 
or  of  any  law  that  adds  to  the  machinery  by  which  they  be¬ 
lieve  that  their  rights  are  disavowed,  their  efforts  nullified 
and  their  reward  for  toil  made  non-existent. 

Much  has  been  said  and  written  about  the  surrender  of 
government  to  an  oligarchy  of  labor. 

Capital  has  been  made  of  the  fact  that  Congress  passed 
the  Adamson  law  in  the  interest  of  a  little  group  of  400,000 
men,  yet  in  the  years  gone  by,  legislation  of  the  character 
of  special  privilege  has  been  passed  by  the  supreme  legisla¬ 
tive  body  at  the  behest  and  in  the  interests  of  groups  of 
men  composed  of  not  onc-one-hundredth  part  as  many  as 
are  represented  here.  Millions  of  acres  of  land,  the  world’s 
supply  of  standing  timber,  water  rights,  charters  for  utilities, 
deposits  of  coal,  a  supply  of  oil  to  serve  the  world,  have  been 
exploited  by  these  very  self-elected  spokesmen  of  a  long 
suffering  public,  now  raising  their  voices  in  denunciation  of 
an  act  humanitarian  in  its  character,  secured,  it  is  true, 
through  the  efforts  of  400,000  men,  but  insuring  to  the  bene¬ 
fit  of  untold  millions  who  now  labor  hours  still  out  of  all 
proportion  to  the  stipend  paid. 

This  proposed  law  is  a  step  backward.  The  Adamson 
law  was  a  step  forward  even  though  it  has  brought  forth,  as 
all  laws  do  that  are  passed  in  the  interest  of  others  than  the 
chosen  few,  a  plentiful  crop  of  criticism  as  to  its  unfairness, 
its  injustice  and  its  impracticability.  It  seems  inevitable  that 
in  the  future  there  must  be  more  legislation  of  similar  char¬ 
acter,  and  less  of  the  kind  that  guarantees  to  Shylock  his 
pound  of  flesh.  For  the  tendency  of  the  age  is  toward  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  rights,  not  the  privileges,  of  the  common  man, 
regardless  of  the  powers  of  either  invisible  government  or 
entrenched  privilege,  and  the  coming  years  surely  will  see 
the  enactment  of  laws  which  will  make  impossible  the  condi¬ 
tion  that  in  a  period  of  unrivaled  prosperity  contributes  its 
benefits  to  the  privileged  few  while  the  great  body  of  citizens 
are  in  a  more  depressing  condition  because  of  high  prices 


294 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


than  they  were  in  preceding  periods  of  depression.  The 
Adamson  law  is  such  a  law.  Any  law  that  deprives  either 
side  of  the  opportunity  to  exercize  to  the  fullest  every  leiti- 
mate  energy  it  possesses  is  not. 

THE  OBJECTIONS  OF  ORGANIZED  LABOR  TO 
COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION1 

I  have  been  requested  to  make  a  statement,  wherein  will  be 
set  forth  the  objections  of  organized  labor  to  compulsory  ar¬ 
bitration.  The  objections  that  I  shall  offer  are  specifically  ob¬ 
jections  to  compulsory  arbitration,  and  may  or  may  not  include 
objections  to  the  Canadian  Act  or  similar  laws  upon  the  sub¬ 
ject.  You  will  notice  that  in  my  remarks  I  refer  to  the  mental 
attitude  of  the  arbitrator  and  state  that  as  a  basis  of  objection 
to  arbitration;  in  fact,  as  evidence  that  arbitration  is  not  an 
equitable  manner  of  disposing  of  wage  questions,  because  so 
much  depends  upon  the  mental  attitude  of  the  individual  whose 
judgment  is  asked. 

Railroad  employees,  and  all  people  who  work  for  wages,  are 
opposed  to  so-called  compulsory  arbitration  because  it  is  but  an 
ill-concealed  effort  on  the  part  of  the  master  class  to  deprive 
labor  of  its  economic  power.  Under  the  guise  of  abitration  it 
is  proposed  to  fix  wages  and  working  conditions  by  judicial  com¬ 
pulsion. 

Whenever  and  wherever  by  judicial  process  labor  has  been 
controlled,  the  employer  has  become  a  master  and  his  employee 
a  peon,  serf  or  slave;  for  now,  heretofore  and  hereafter  the 
master  class  molds  the  mind  of  the  judiciary.  An  arbitrator 
created  by  law  is  no  less  a  judge,  and  where  appointed  by  gov¬ 
ernmental  authority  becomes  a  dictator.  Should  his  dictum  be 
enforced  by  law  his  reign  is  no  less  that  of  a  tyrant,  though  he 
may  be  a  benevolent  tyrant. 

The  American  constitution  may  be  cited  as  the  first  award  of 
an  arbitration  of  labor’s  rights.  A  majority  of  the  colonies 
represented  at  the  Philadelphia  convention  had  abolished  slavery. 
Most  of  the  delegates  regarded  the  slave  institutions  with  abhor¬ 
rence,  yet  the  class  consciousness  of  those  same  delegates 


1 W.  S.  Carter,  President,  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Firemen  and 
Enginemen.  Proceedings.  Academy  of  Political  Science.  7:36- 43.  January, 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


295 


caused  them  to  refuse  to  interfere  with  the  business  interests 
of  the  employers  in  the  remaining  colonies  where  slave  labor 
was  a  source  of  profit  to  the  master  class,  and  slavery  was  made 
an  American  institution  by  constitutional  law.  Until  the  civil 
war  the  American  master  class  maintained  the  right  of  owner¬ 
ship  in  human  beings. 

It  has  not  been  long  since  railway  employees  favored  legal 
measures  for  conducting  voluntary  arbitrations  of  wage  dis¬ 
putes.  The  first  federal  arbitration  law,  known  as  the  Erdman 
Act,  was  favored  by  railroad  employees,  although  opposed  as 
a  dangerous  precedent  by  workers  in  other  crafts.  Its  succes¬ 
sor,  the  present  Newlands  Act,  was  earnestly  supported  by  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  railroad  employees.  Yet  practically  all  railroad 
employees  now  look  upon  the  law  with  fear  and  suspicion.  They 
have  learned  by  bitter  experience  that  arbitration  under  the 
federal  law  is  not  fair  to  the  employees.  Through  disastrous 
arbitrations  they  have  discovered  that  this  insidious  class  con¬ 
sciousness  of  business  interests  permeates  our  whole  social 
structure.  They  have  learned  that  in  the  selection  of  arbitrators 
only  those  of  the  master  class,  or  sympathetic  therewith,  are 
eligible,  and  that  a  financial  interest  in  the  results  of  an  arbitra¬ 
tion  better  fits  a  man  to  serve  as  arbitrator. 

If  the  eight-hour  day,  questions  of  wages  and  other  such 
controversies  are  to  be  adjusted  by  arbitration,  and  there  is  an 
earnest  desire  to  secure  an  unbiased  award,  no  person  connected 
with  or  in  sympathy  with  the  workers  or  the  servant  class  would 
probably  be  appointed  as  a  “neutral.”  No  person  connected  with 
the  employers  or  in  sympathy  with  the  master  class  could  be 
truly  neutral.  Now  that  the  master  class  provides  princely  sums 
for  endowment  and  pensions  in  the  great  educational  institu¬ 
tions,  we  find  learned  men  summarily  discharged  for  partisan 
leanings  toward  the  servant  class.  Who  is  there  left? 

In  the  last  arbitration  conducted  under  the  present  law  we 
found  a  gentleman  selected  as  a  neutral  arbitrator  whose  social, 
business  and  political  standing  was  such  as  gave  credit  and  dis¬ 
tinction  to  the  proceedings.  Subsequently,  but  before  the  award 
was  made,  we  discovered  that  as  trustee  or  director  he  had 
great  financial  interest  in  the  matter  he  was  to  adjudicate.  We 
learned  that  as  director  of  one  trust  company  he  held  $12,500,- 
000  of  first  mortgage  bonds  of  one  of  the  railroads  party  to  the 
arbitration.  In  similar  manner  vast  amounts  of  securities  of  the 


296 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


railroads  interested  in  the  arbitration  were  owned  or  controlled 
by  financial  institutions  with  which  he  was  officially  connected. 

Having  knowledge  of  his  utter  lack  of  sympathy  for  the 
contentions  of  the  employees,  we  filed  a  protest  with  the  Federal 
board  of  mediation  and  conciliation  against  his  continuance  on 
the  arbitration  board.  In  reply  we  were  informed  that  “a 
knowledge  of  that  fact  would  have  been  favorable  rather  than 
otherwise  to  his  appointment,  and  nothing  has  been  brought  to 
our  notice  since  his  appointment  as  an  arbitrator  which,  in  our 
opinion,  disqualifies  him  as  an  arbitrator.” 

A  public  opinion  has  recently  been  created  through  the  lav¬ 
ish  expenditure  of  money  by  a  junta  of  railroad  financial  in¬ 
terests,  with  their  headquarters  in  this  city,  that  makes  it  almost 
impossible  for  railroad  employees  to  secure  justice  through  any 
tribunal.  In  their  efforts  to  convince  the  American  people  that 
railroad  emplo3^ees  should  not  secure  an  eight-hour  day,  we 
have  reason  to  believe  that  many  millions  of  dollars  were  ex¬ 
pended  in  an  attempt  to  suborn  the  public  press  of  the  nation. 
'We  have  evidence  that  in  this  publicity  campaign  these  railroad 
financial  directors  employed  the  advertising  pages  of  more  than 
3000  daily  and  more  than  14,000  weekly  papers.  Before  these 
millions  were  poured  into  the  advertising  coffers  of  these  news¬ 
papers,  many  were  friendly  to  our  cause  and  a  majority  were 
at  worst  neutral.  Almost  immediately  the  editorial  opinions  of 
these  same  newspapers  voiced  sentiments  similar  to  those  ex¬ 
pressed  in  their  advertising  pages.  Thus  we  see  that  with  an 
effort  to  impose  an  arbitration  of  wage  disputes  the  railroads 
seek  to  create  a  public  opinion  that  will  win  for  them  the  decision 
thereunder.  If  arbitration  is  to  be  enforced  against  railroad 
employees,  the  law  should  prohibit  the  use  of  money  by  rail¬ 
roads  in  thus  “packing  the  jury.” 

Aside  from  the  fact  that  an  arbitration  award  depends  al¬ 
most  entirely  upon  the  mental  attitude  of  the  so-called  neutral 
arbitrator,  an  award  favorable  to  employees  is  never  applied 
justly.  In  any  arbitration  of  a  controversy  between  railroad 
employees  and  their  employers  the  latter  administer  the  award. 
What  would  be  thought  of  the  effectiveness  of  a  court  judg¬ 
ment  enforced  only  by  one  of  the  litigants?  Yet  this  is  how 
arbitration  awards  are  put  into  effect.  What  are  intended  to  be 
wage  increases  are  juggled  into  wage  reductions  by  railroad 
officials,  whose  authority  in  the  matter  has  never  been  ques¬ 
tioned. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


297 


To  sum  up  the  objections  of  working  people  to  any  form  of 
compulsory  arbitration,  I  may  brief  them  as  follows: 

(1)  It  is  but  a  scheme  by  which  the  employer  hopes  to  gain 
a  mastery  over  his  employees: 

(a)  By  making  strikes  illegal,  and  thus  depriving  work¬ 
ing  people  of  their  only  economic  power. 

(b)  By  suppressing  labor  organization,  through  depriv¬ 
ing  them  of  the  power  to  effect  their  purpose. 

(c)  By  creating  conditions  of  labor  through  judicial 
process,  which  process  the  master  class  always  has  in¬ 
fluenced  and  always  will  greatly  influence. 

(2)  It  is  but  the  expression  of  a  selfish  desire : 

(a)  To  avoid  the  personal  inconvenience  incidental  to 
all  strikes,  without*  regard  to  the  injustice  against 
which  the  workers  are  struggling. 

(b)  To  avoid  the  financial  loss  to  business  interests  en¬ 
gaged  in  production  and  transportation,  regardless  of 
the  financial  loss  that  may  fall  on  the  workers. 

(3)  It  is  but  a  symptom  of  the  mental  and  moral  degenera¬ 
tion  through  which  all  great  and  prosperous  nations  have  passed 
when: 

(a)  Fundamental  principles  of  individual  liberty  are 
forgotten. 

(b)  That  for  which  the  founders  of  liberty  were  hon¬ 
ored  becomes  a  social  menace. 

(c)  The  struggle  for  wealth  overshadows  all  else, 
with  consequent  disregard  for  the  rights  of  the 
working  classes. 

(4)  It  is  a  deliberate  effort  to  deprive  working  people  of 
their  economic  power: 

(a)  Through  legislation  nominally  to  preserve  public 
peace. 

(b)  Through  an  artificial  public  opinion,  largely 
created  by  those  who  control  the  public  press. 

(c)  Through  a  presumption  that  for  public  con¬ 
venience  the  federal  judiciary  will  find  a  method  of 
depriving  all  working  people  of  their  constitutional 
right  to  escape  involuntary  servitude  except  as 
punishment  for  crime. 

This  sums  up  the  objections  not  only  of  organized  labor, 
but  of  all  labor  against  compulsory  arbitration.  Some  of 


298 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


these  statements  I  believe  to  be  extreme,  perhaps  not 
founded  on  fact;  nevertheless  many,  many  working  people 
believe  them  to  be  true,  and  so  believing,  have  a  right  to 
object  vigorously  to  compulsory  arbitration. 

Pardon  me  if  I  draw  a  parallel.  There  is  a  general  pub¬ 
lic  demand  that  there  be  no  strikes  such  as  to  bring  upon 
the  country  what  has  been  described  as  disaster;  therefore, 
a  law  is  sought  to  suppress  industrial  unrest  that  may  result 
in  these  disastrous  strikes.  That  is  the  theory  of  all  mon- 
arcliial  forms  of  government  with  regard  to  political  unrest. 
If  that  theory  could  have  been  enforced  during  the  War  of 
the  revolution  there  would  have  been  no  United  States  of 
America.  From  a  British  point  of  view  the  social  unrest 
that  may  result  from  a  strike  is  not  comparable  with  the 
political  unrest  that  resulted  in  the  formation  of  these 
United  States.  Any  effort  to  secure  political  liberty  would 
have  been  suppressed  for  identically  the  same  reasons  and 
with  just  as  good  argument  as  any  effort  to  secure  indus¬ 
trial  liberty. 

In  America  we  have  a  democratic  form  of  government 
whereby  presumably  every  citizen  votes  his  will.  I  am  glad 
to  say  that  we  had  many  more  citizens  voting  during  the 
last  election  than  ever  before.  I  refer  to  the  women.  There¬ 
fore,  in  this  country  political  unrest  is  perhaps  satisfied  by 
the  opportunity  to  go  to  the  polls  and  change  that  against 
which  we  protest  or  complain.  But  in  monarchial  forms  of 
government,  in  past  centuries,  and  still  today  in  some  coun¬ 
tries,  no  such  opportunity  was  given  to  the  people.  The 
governing  class,  who  have  always  been  the  master  class, 
truly  believed  that  they  were  better  qualified  to  legislate  for 
the  masses  than  were  the  masses  themselves.  In  order  to 
prevent  the  masses  from  attempting  to  legislate  for  them¬ 
selves,  they  deprived  them  of  all  legislative  authority;  and 
in  order  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  land  they  shot  as 
traitors  any  persons  who  attempted  to  gain  liberty  beyond 
that  which  the  government  had  accorded  them.  Now  I  sub¬ 
mit  to  you  that  an  effort  in  this  country  to  deprive  labor 
of  its  economic  power  to  better  its  condition,  receives  its 
impetus  in  the  same  desire  for  peace  that  has  held  back  the 
political  rights  of  the  human  race  for  so  many  centuries. 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


299 


There  is  a  demand  among  all  of  us  for  peace.  We  would 
rather  suffer  untold  wrongs  than  to  engage  in  war,  political 
or  industrial.  We  are  so  constituted — and  when  I  say  “we” 
I  mean  the  great  mass  of  people — that  we  would  rather  see 
the  workers  deprived  of  that  which  is  justly  due  them  than 
be  inconvenienced  by  a  great  strike  that  perhaps  may  prove 
a  calamity.  Whenever  a  nation  reaches  that  point  where 
the  public  convenience  is  used  to  suppress  the  individual 
rights  of  the  people,  then  that  nation  has  reached  its  zenith, 
and  is  on  the  downward  path.  If  you  and  I  are  unwilling  to 
suffer  an  inconvenience  in  order  that  someone  may  improve 
his  industrial  condition,  then  this  nation  has  not  fulfilled  the 
purposes  of  those  who  created  it. 

If  during  the  present  ‘period  the  American  public  will 
agree  to  an  eva'sion  of  the  thirteenth  amendment  of  the 
constitution  and  without  protest  see  railroad  employees  sub¬ 
jected  to  involuntary  servitude,  then  I  predict  that  the  day 
is  not  far  distant  when  these  same  peace-loving  people  will 
submit  to  a  loss  of  political  liberty  rather  than  make  militant 
protest  against  that  loss.  I  have  not  lost  faith  in  the  ju¬ 
diciary,  as  many  working  people  have.  I  yet  believe  that  an 
attempt  to  enforce  compulsory  arbitration  upon  the  working 
people  of  this  country,  even  those  that  are  employed  by  the 
railroads,  will  be  frustrated  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  this 
land.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  will  permit  an  evasion  of  the  thirteenth  amendment 
of  the  constitution,  even  though  it  be  for  the  preservation  of 
industrial  peace. 


BRIEF  EXCERPTS 

The  Canadian  law  has  no  provision  preventing  employers 
from  bringing  in  strike-breakers  during  the  investigation. — 
Outlook.  94 :  648.  March  26,  1910. 

Twice  as  many  labor  disputes,  involving  five  times  as 
many  employees,  are  settled  by  voluntary  boards  in  New 
York  City  every  year  as  all  the  disputes  that,  the  Canadian 
Compulsory  Investigation  Act  has  disposed  of  during  its  en¬ 
tire  lifetime. — Ralph  M.  Easley,  Review  of  Reviews.  55 :  190 
February,  1917. 


300 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


In  my  judgment  the  holding  of  any  person  in  custody, 
whether  in  jail  or  by  an  officer  of  the  law,  against  his  will, 
for  the  purpose  of  compelling  him  to  render  personal  ser¬ 
vice  to  another  in  a  private  business,  places  the  person  so 
held  in  custody  in  a  condition  of  involuntary  servitude  for¬ 
bidden  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. — Dissenting 
opinion  of  Justice  Harlan  in  the  Arago  case. 

The  compulsory  feature  of  the  Canadian  Act  has  made 
more  law  breakers  than  all  the  jails  in  the  Dominion  of 
Canada  could  hold.  In  the  nine  years  during  which  this  act 
has  been  in  existence,  it  has,  according  to  official  reports, 
dealt  with  disputes  involving  altogether  only  one  hundred 
and  forty  six  thousand  employes,  thirty  two  thousand  of 
whom  went  on  strike  despite  the  law. — Bellman.  22:35.  January 
13,  1917. 

A  major  strike  of  railroad  employees  is  a  species  of  civil 
warfare,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  it  is  a  thing  which  public  policy 
should  tolerate,  but  I  think  that  we  have  not  yet  reached  the 
point  where  punitive  enactments  would  have  had  nation¬ 
wide  support  or  would  have  produced  any  better  result  than 
the  machinery  for  investigation  and  full  publicity  which  the 
[Esch-Cummins]  Act  provides. — Ray  Morris,  World’s  Work. 
39:  547.  April,  1920. 

The  right  to  strike  for  the  purpose  of  improving  working 
and  living  conditions  has  been  recognized  as  a  natural  right 
to  labor  by  all  peoples  from  the  dawn  of  civilization  until 
comparatively  recently.  In  the  last  analysis  it  is  the  only 
weapon  with  which  labor  can  fight  its  battles  for  justice  and 
human  rights.  It  is  the  thing  above  all  others  which  marks 
the  distinction  between  industrial  freedom  and  serfdom. 
Today,  almost  for  the  first  time,  it  is  seriously  questioned. — 
F.  C.  Canfield,  President  Iowa  State  Federation  of  Labor. 
Iowa  Unionist,  January  15,  1920. 

Moreover,  arbitration  may  be  voluntary  or  compulsory. 
Both  the  reference  of  the  dispute  to  an  arbitrator  and  the 
acquiescence  in  the  terms  of  his  award  may  be  voluntary;  or 
the  reference  may  be  voluntary  and  the  award  compulsory; 
or  both  the  reference  and  the  award  may  be  compulsory. 
It  is  only  arbitration  providing  for  decree  binding  upon  the 
disputants  with  which  we  are  concerned.  Arbitration  with 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


301 


voluntary  award  is  a  whim.  An  award  unsatisfactory  to 
either  party  becomes  binding  upon  neither. — Wilson  Compton, 
American  Economic  Review.  6:325.  June,  1916. 

If  it  came  to  me  as  an  international  officer  of  a  union  to 
recommend  to  the  membership  of  our  organization  in  Colo¬ 
rado  as  to  whether  they  would  continue  employment  until 
an  investigation  had  been  made  by  the  state  officials,  thereby 
giving  the  employers  an  opportunity  to  recruit  new  forces  to 
fill  their  positions,  I  should  not  hesitate  one  moment  in  say¬ 
ing,  “Strike,  and  strike  immediately;  and  we  will  then  take 
up  the  question  of  any  law  which  takes  away  from  you  your 
rights  as  free  men/'  That  frankly  is  our  position  in  the 
matter.  Peter  J.  Brady,  Secretary  Allied  Printing  Trades  Coun¬ 
cil.  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  of  Political  Science.  7:31 H 
January,  1917. 

The  antistrike  amendment  recommended  to  Congress  by 
President  Wilson  ...  is  wholly  to  the  advantage  of  the 
employers'  class.  A  threatened  strike  would  be  held  up  in¬ 
definitely  or  at  least  until  its  force  was  spent  in  watchful 
waiting.  Under  this  amendment  a  strike,  if  lawfully  possible 
at  all,  would  be  robbed  of  its  strategic  advantages  and 
doomed  to  inevitable  defeat.  A  strike  held  up  becomes  as 
futile  as  a  charge  held  up  on  a  field  of  battle.  But  such  a  law 
could  not  be  enforced  against  the  will  of  the  labor  movement. 
All  the  laws  and  all  the  courts  and  governments  on  earth 
could  not  prevent  a  million  organized  workers  from  striking. 
— Eugene  V.  Debs,  Literary  Digest.  53 :  1582.  Dec.  16,  1916 

Mr.  Gompers  has  said  before  the  Committees  in  the 
Senate  and  in  the  House  what  he  said  in  1916,  that  anti¬ 
strike  legislation  would  not  be  obeyed,  could  not  be  enforced 
and  that  he,  as  President  of  the  American  Federation  of  La¬ 
bor,  would  not  lend  his  influence  for  obedience  to  such  a  law. 
During  the  discussion  of  anti-strike  legislation  in  1916,  Mr. 
Gompers  said:  “Law  or  no  law,  president  or  no  president, 
such  a  law  would  not  be  obeyed."  And  testifying  before  a 
committee  of  Congress  this  year  Mr.  Gompers  said:  “With 
a  full  sense  of  my  responsibility,  I  say  that  I  should  have 
no  more  hesitancy  about  participating  in  a  strike  after  its 
passage  than  I  do  now.  It  wouldn't  stop  strikes;  it  would 
make  law  breakers." — Law  and  Labor.  1 : 23.  December,  1919. 


302 


COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  OF 


If  men  can  strike  with  impunity  in  disregard  of  the  law, 
what  is  the  value  of  the  latter  in  preventing  or  postponing 
strikes?  Will  the  act  not  fall  into  abeyance  except  in  those 
minor  and  less  acute  disputes  where  there  is  least  call  for 
government  intervention?  Has  a  law  any  force  at  all  that 
operates  only  by  the  tolerance  of  the  law-breakers?  It 
should  be  recognized  that  expediency  must  constantly  be 
consulted  in  administering  such  an  act;  but  it  would  seem 
that  the  latter,  though  it  may  retain  some  residuary  value  as 
providing  convenient  machinery  for  public  mediation,  must 
lose  its  distinctive  character  and  its  interest  as  experimental 
legislation  unless  some  way  is  discovered  to  secure  the  ob¬ 
servance  of  the  clauses  deferring  strikes  and  lockouts  until 
after  an  investigation  has  been  held.  Unless  these  clauses 
are  enforced,  the  law  becomes  an  ordinary  conciliation  act, 
burdened  by  the  discredit  of  its  unenforced  provisions. — 
Victor  S.  Clark.  Bulletin  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor.  20:19-20. 
January ,  1910. 

The  Canadian  statute,  does  not  proceed  upon  the  theory 
that  the  Government  will  adjudicate  the  merits  of  the  dis¬ 
pute  or  assume  any  responsibility  for  the  adjudication  of  the 
dispute.  The  Canadian  statute  proceeds  upon  the  theory 
that  if  alt  the  facts  are  gathered  together  by  a  tribunal  com¬ 
petent  for  that  purpose,  and  the  facts  are  published,  then 
public  opinion  will  correct  the  evil  which  may  grow  from  a 
strike. 

Sometimes  that  is  true;  sometimes  it  is  not  true.  I  only 
suggest  that  there  have  been  more  strikes  upon  the  railways 
in  Canada,  notwithstanding  the  statute  than  there  have  been 
in  the  United  States  in  the  same  length  of  time. 

In  the  former  hearings,  when  the  committee  was  survey¬ 
ing  the  whole  field,  the  representatives  of  labor  were  particu¬ 
larly  critical  of  the  Canadian  statute.  They  have  represented 
to  the  committee  many  times  that  the  efforts  of  the  Canadian 
government  to  suppress  strikes  through  the  investigating 
committee,  and  the  publication  of  its  reports,  had  been  a 
total  failure;  and  I  rather  accept  their  judgment  with  respect 
to  that,  in  view  of  the  instances  which  they  furnish  us  of  the 
number  of  strikes  which  had  occurred  under  the  statute. — 
Senator  A.  B.  Cummins.  Congressional  Record ,  December  18, 

1919- 


INDUSTRIAL  DISPUTES 


303 


ILLEGAL  STRIKES  AND  LOCKOUTS  AND  PROSECUTIONS1 

(In  Canada  in  industries  within  the  scope  of  the  Industrial  Disputes 

Investigation  Act.) 


Year 

Total  strikes 
and  lockouts 

Legal  strikes 
and  lockouts 

Illegal  strikes 
and  lockouts 

Prosecutions 

1907  . 

.  41 

2 

39 

9 

1908  . 

.  19 

1 

18 

4 

1909  . 

.  19 

3 

16 

1 

1910  . 

.  14 

4 

10 

0 

1911  . . 

.  25 

1 

24 

5 

1912  . 

.  32 

2 

30 

0 

1913  . 

.  21 

2 

*9 

3 

1914  . 

6 

I 

5 

0 

1915  . 

.  11 

I 

10 

X 

1916  . 

•  34 

I 

33 

0 

*  Total... 

•  222 

♦ 

18 

204 

33 

Bulletin  233, 

U.  S.  Bureau 

of  Labor  Statistics,  p.  121:132-4. 

STRIKES  AND  LOCKOUTS1 

(In  Canada  in  industries  within  the  scope  of  the  Industrial  Dispute 
.  Investigation  Act.) 


Year 

Strikes  and  Establish-  Employees 

lockouts  ments  affected  affected 

Days  lost 

1907 

105+ 

19,468 

261,415+ 

1908  , 

19 

12,754 

446,706+ 

1909  , 

29 

10,717 

725,448 

1910 

17 

4,599+ 

458,204 

1911 

135 

14,806 

1,684,573 

1912  . 

59 

11,152 

179,629 

19*3 

27 

4, *83 

736,019 

1914  . 

6 

1,382 

*73,737 

*9*5  • 

20 

5,598 

38,548 

1916  , 

78 

15,949 

*34,368 

Total....  222 

495+ 

100,608+ 

4,838,647+ 

1  Bulletin  233,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  p.  24. 


Date  Due 

J  1 

Jt;N“4’63 

»»*  •  * 

y 

ikiu 

/  / 

1 

»l  1 

l 


BOSTON  COLLEGE 


3  9031 


y 


041198  1 


